In the Union Committee's View, the Hankook Ilbo Article Deletion Was an Act of Management Interference
A Hankook Ilbo article on the trial of the Hyosung Group brothers was taken down on the orders of the newsroom chief (the executive who oversees news production) barely five hours after it became visible to readers. The Democratic Media Practice Committee (Minshilwi) of the Hankook Ilbo branch of the National Union of Media Workers demanded an apology and the restoration of the article.
At 4:30 a.m. on the 28th of last month, the Hankook Ilbo published an exclusive story on a recording of conversations between the brothers, submitted as evidence in the trial of former Hyosung Vice Chairman Cho Hyun-moon on charges of attempted coercion against Hyosung Chairman Cho Hyun-joon. The article was deleted at 10:12 that same morning, on the order of Newsroom Chief Kang Cheol-won. The deletion was carried out without the consent of the legal affairs team leader and the society desk chief who had approved the story, and without notice to the reporter who wrote it.
In a statement on the 4th, the committee said the story “went through the normal process for release—an exclusive report, drafting, a morning briefing, the desk chiefs’ meeting, and desk editing—and was not even a misreport.” Suspicion was raised by a visit just before the deletion. According to the branch committee, Hyosung executives, the interested party, came to the Hankook Ilbo that morning and met in turn with the newsroom chief and the newspaper’s president; the deletion followed. “Given that the article was deleted immediately after a major company’s forceful protest and a visit, it is hard to dispel the suspicion that management judgment was involved in the process,” the committee said.
There was internal pushback as well. The society desk chief reportedly went to the editorial department after the deletion to protest the move. The branch demanded the article’s restoration in a meeting with Chief Kang on the 3rd, but the request was not accepted.
Questions about interference in the trial had already been raised in a mass email to union members on the 1st. The Hankook Ilbo branch pointed out: “The transcript had already been submitted to the court, and the article was written with a neutral headline—how could it have unfairly influenced the trial?” It added, “If it could be read as one-sided, the answer was to shore up the rebuttal.” In connection with the case, the branch has asked the editorial production review council, grounded in the company’s internal editorial code, to take up the matter.
The Principle Broken by the Very Chief Who Wrote the Guidelines
The committee noted that the deletion violated the company’s own “Guidelines for the Deletion and Revision of Newsroom Content.” The guidelines require the newsroom chief to share the situation with the desk and the reporter concerned when an interested party requests an article’s revision or deletion—and Chief Kang himself led the process of drawing them up after the controversy early this year over the deletion and revision of an article on the drunk driving of Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Chung Eui-sun’s son. “Barely a few months later, in the face of a major company’s forceful protest, he tore down the principle with his own hands,” the committee’s statement said, asking, “Would readers regard a news outlet where stories about corporations vanish overnight as one that properly keeps watch over capital and power?”
The day after the committee’s statement, on the 5th, Chief Kang posted his position on the company’s internal bulletin board. His conclusion was that the article was an unbalanced piece—tilted toward a particular source, repeatedly defending the defendant, and seeking to unduly influence the trial. The grounds cited for the deletion were that the quoted recording came from the side of the defendant, former Vice Chairman Cho Hyun-moon; that its contents would foster a negative perception of Chairman Cho Hyun-joon; and that a follow-up court hearing was scheduled for 2 p.m. on the day of publication.
Chief Kang argued that the deletion did not violate the guidelines, saying he had informed the legal affairs team leader and the society desk chief of his decision by phone and KakaoTalk before the article was taken down. “I regret that communication fell short,” he said, while explaining that the reporters were not expected to consent to the deletion. He added, “The story itself should have been stopped from release the day before; failing to make that judgment properly was the newsroom chief’s gravest lapse.”
He denied any connection between the Hyosung visit and the decision to delete. “The Hyosung Group side sent a KakaoTalk message and then came to the company unilaterally to try to explain their position, so we sent them straight back,” Chief Kang said. “Some people connect this with the decision to delete the article, but I was not influenced in any way.” Rebuttal comments from reporters were posted beneath his statement. Chief Kang did not respond to phone and text-message inquiries about his position on the 6th.
