[Reporter`s view] Broadcasting Commission is too cautious

On the morning of Dec. 20, a reader called Dong-a Ilbo to ask why the Korean Broadcasting Commission was not invited to the screening process to select the satellite broadcasting carrier. He meant that he could not understand the fact that the commission was excluded in evaluating the appropriateness of applicants.

I had the same question. I was curious to know why Kang Dae-In, vice chairman of the Broadcasting Commission, who was the head of the screening committee, did not participate in the grading process of the applicants.

Officials of the commission said that they had selected 13 out of the 54 experts recommended by associations and organizations in the fields of broadcasting, management accounting, technology, legal and civic organizations. Two representatives of the civic groups were recommended by the commission's subcommittee for selection of personnel.

Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice was requested to recommend candidates, but it declined to do so on grounds that it is in a position to supervise the screening process. Also, candidates recommended by the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy refused their nomination for personal reasons.

The 14 members of the screening body, which were isolated from external influence, evaluated the documents submitted by the applicants for four days. Kim Kuk-Hoo, spokesman of the Broadcasting Commission, said that the procedure was designed to prevent any challenges for fairness that officials of the commission were excluded from the body. Instead, the commission fully informed the members of the screening body about the evaluation criteria.

However, it is difficult to understand why members of the commission didn't participate in the screening process. It is the Broadcasting Commission that knows best about the reality of the broadcasting industry, and it is the one that has to tackle problems faced by the broadcasting services as their supervising organization.

If the commission has so far taken a fair attitude and has nothing to do with any of the applicants, it wouldn't have to worry if it participated in the screening process. Nevertheless, the decision not to participate in the screening, as if a conscience needs no accuser, appears to be avoidance of responsibility, as well as downgrading of its status.

Kim Cha-Soo kimcs@donga.com