Stories of KBS presidents’ ruthless troubles

“I am the first president of Korea Broadcasting System who was elected through a popular vote (by the board).”

Seo Young-hoon, former KBS president (November 1988 – March 1990), once made the remarks, as he reflected upon memories of his term in office. As a result of democratization movement in 1987, the board of trustees was formed as the autonomous decision-making body at KBS, and started exercising the right to recommend the KBS president. Seo was the first president who was appointed through approval by the board. It was a meaningful change aimed at ending the practice in which the ruling party designates the KBS president.

However, the first KBS president elected through a public vote became the first that was forced to step down. According to his memoir, an inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection revealed that Seo illicitly paid 1.7 billion won (1.6 million dollars) in allowances. Judging that “the incident (discovery of this irregularity) happened because KBS was not cooperative with the government,” he felt “pressure to resign” and tendered his resignation less than half way through his term, and the board approved a motion to dismiss him as president.

From Seo to incumbent KBS President Kil Hwan-young, KBS has had a total of nine presidents who were elected through a public vote by the board. Of these, only two including Seo Ki-won (April 1990 – March 1993) and Kim In-gyu (November 2009 – November 2012), managed to complete their terms, but these also had to undergo tough situations. The labor union blocked Seo from coming to office, accusing him of being a pro-government figure. He was able to come to office only after police forced out and arrested unionized workers on strike. The union halted program production for 36 days. Former KBS President Kim In-gyu was also blocked from coming to office for the same reason, and the union continued a general strike for 93 days during the final days of his term office, demanding him to step down.

Former KBS Presidents Hong Doo-pyo (March 1993 – April 1998) and Park Kwon-sang (April 1998 – March 2003) succeeded in re-election, but they voluntarily resigned after transition of governments. Jung Yeon-joo (April 2003 – August 2008), who won re-election, was forced out while struggling to complete his second term even after change of administrations. He was the second KBS president dismissed by the board.

Now, it is incumbent President Kil’s turn. With the two major KBS unions on strike, the board will discuss a motion to dismiss Kil on Sunday. The reason cited for his possible release is that KBS’ public credibility was damaged due to controversy over his alleged control of news reporting, that he is the person who is ultimately responsible for sloppy reporting on the Sewol tragedy, and that he failed in management of the broadcaster, which was revealed through the audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection in March.

The stories of KBS presidents’ ruthless troubles have repeated for the 27th year because the political circle has continued to keep its greed to take advantage of broadcasting for its political interests since the introduction of the KBS president’s election through a public vote by the board. Composed of the members recommended by the ruling and opposition parties, the board has served as political proxy, rather than as a supervisor who serves on behalf of the public. Viewers of the broadcaster take the brunt of damage. Disruptions in broadcasting service at KBS that began on May 19 have continued for 16th day through Tuesday.

The “main broadcaster in charge of covering disasters has become a disaster in itself,” as admitted by members of KBS, and it cannot be left unchecked. It is even more so, given that the current government strongly calls for normalization of abnormalities. A president elected through popular vote can hardly complete their terms in office, while KBS unions stage strikes almost annually by taking viewers hostage, who have to pay subscription fees even though they are served ill-prepared, shoddy programing service. It is not a normal situation at all.

Problems with KBS should be an agenda item in the envisaged reform of the government. Then, we should ask these questions. Do we really need a public broadcaster in this era of multiple media outlets and countless TV channels? If we need a public broadcaster, what is the best way to elect the board members and the president to ensure their political independence and neutrality? Don’t we need to discard the system in which KBS subscription fees are billed together with electric utility, so that the public can check KBS’ reckless management and irresponsible strikes through a campaign to reject payment of the subscription fee? We no longer want to see stories of KBS presidents’ grave troubles, which are way more irrational and violent than soap operas of unethical characters and stories.