This op-ed was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide.
The pursuit of facts is the highest goal in journalism. Journalists from countries with different cultures, races and ethnicities all strive to gather facts to build a fact-based foundation for public discourse.
The historical experiences of a society sometimes influence fact-checking. In some political and social contexts, pursuits of social objectives have been considered more important than fact-checking. Korea, for example, has a complex past in fact-checking in journalism.
The modern newspaper came to Korea in the late 19th century as the monarchy came to an end. Shortly after, Korea became a Japanese colony. While there was a press under colonial rule, it did not enjoy total freedom. Korean newspapers were censored by the colonial government. Newspapers were often suspended and many shut down.
Under colonial rule, Korean journalists considered it their highest mission to expose the reality of their compatriots who were being persecuted by the Japanese. Where American journalists established the objective principle of “just the facts,” the mission of Korean journalists was to save their compatriots and expose the injustices of colonial rule. A good journalist, at the time, had to be a patriot rather than an objective, fact-based professional.
After independence from Japan, a 40-year dictatorship did not allow a democratic press. Journalists experienced blatant censorship, illegal arrests, detention and dismissal. Journalists agonized between two choices: They could obey power and write docile articles or fight for democratic freedom despite fear of repression.
Although Korea’s media followed the Western-style reporting formats, such as the inverted pyramid style and 5W1H, it applied objectivity in a dogmatic way rather than establishing it as a professional ethic.
After democratization in 1987, various media emerged in Korea. Political oppression was a problem in the past and survival in market competition became crucial. This commercial competition created partisanship in media. Politics polarized into progressive and conservative, and the media focused on building loyalty among progressive or conservative camps rather than providing a forum for discussion to resolve the polarization of society.
The public reaction to the media’s polarization has been cynical, with many Korean media consumers pointing to biased reporting as the biggest problem in Korean journalism.
Fact-checking has been popularized in South Korea since 2017. SNU FactCheck, the country’s first fact-checking platform, is operated by Seoul National University. It is a collaborative effort between 32 Korean media outlets, each independently and freely publishing verified results. The platform includes both progressive and conservative media outlets.
In October 2019, the affiliated media outlets unanimously established a set of rules for regulating SNU FactCheck, which include the first principle that fact-checking must be impartial and nonpartisan, following the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles.
Although journalists may have different political stances, they can reach a consensus when it comes to fact-checking.
Fact-based reporting should be the foundation for public discourse. Without fact-checkers’ efforts, confirmation bias, with individuals only selectively accepting opinions that they support, could lead to extreme polarization in society. Fact-checking is increasingly important not only in today’s polarized Korean society but also in the 21st-century world. Journalists can and must provide reliable and nonpartisan facts to citizens who seek rational discussions based on reason.
The Global Fact 10 conference will take place in Seoul. It is the first time the conference has been held in Asia since its inception. It is not only an important milestone in the history of Korean media but also a significant event for the many countries in Asia that have different political and social contexts than the United States and Europe. Fact-checkers around the world share the basic principles of impartiality and transparency, but they struggle in their unique contexts with different challenges.
I hope that fact-checkers who have similar but different faces will meet in Seoul to share their experiences with each other to find solutions to their combined challenges.
