2023-04-18 00:05:00
I doubted my ears. This is because of what a presidential office official said on the 14th in response to a reporter’s question about the arrest of a suspect in leaking confidential documents in the United States. An official said, “I don’t think there is a country in the political world that (creates) such a political strife and deals with it in such detail in the media.”
What follows is even more poignant. He said, “Freedom of speech does not always coincide with national interest, but if national interest and national interest collide, I think that it is the right way for the media to think of its own national interest first.”
According to the currently leaked classified documents, it is revealed that the US intelligence agency wiretapped the conversations between high-ranking officials of the National Security Office indirectly supplying the US with ammunition for the war in Ukraine. that’s not right.
Even the national interest, which is said to correspond to the higher concept of freedom of the press, has nothing to do with the national interest at all. When asked whether the government is taking a dignified response after defining it as a clear infringement of sovereignty along with the details of how information on our diplomatic and security lines was passed over according to other countries’ wiretapping, it is an erroneous argument for national interest. Rather, it is possible to criticize the remarks by officials in the presidential office as damaging the national interest by excusing the U.S. government for wiretapping and hiding the damage we have suffered. It is possible to suspect impure intentions from the fact that the national interest and freedom of the press were linked, but this administration does not even have the qualifications to say such a thing.
The New York Times was the first to publicize the leakage of classified documents. Let’s ask ourselves what would happen if a U.S. government official instructed the media to think of the national interest first. Are you saying that the New York Times is really unaware that it is dealing with the wiretapping and leaking of classified documents by its own intelligence agency because it believes that it is the citizen’s right to know and that the public interest is in line with the national interest?
On October 28 of last year, the US government made a rule that will shine in media history. At the time, U.S. Attorney General Marrick Galland issued a statement saying that the federal authorities would create new regulations prohibiting warrants, subpoenas, and court orders to obtain journalists’ emails and other communications records, to obtain journalistic memos, and to secure testimony.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the regulation fully guarantees journalists’ reporting activities, which it describes as “a process by which journalists collect, track, or obtain information for public purposes, including confidential information.” “A free and independent press plays a crucial role in defending democracy,” said Minister Galland. How contrary to the remarks about the national interest of a presidential office official this time. This is the reason why there is no room for national interest in the New York Times report on the leakage of classified documents from the country.
Regarding this incident, the Korean media should also make it clear that it is a matter of sovereignty infringement. Compare this to when it became known in 2013 that the NSA wiretaped 38 US embassies in the US, including South Korea, and Europe according to the British Guardian report. At the time, the media clarified with one voice that it was a criminal act by the United States, and that it should be sternly protested and demanded an apology and prevention of recurrence.
For example, in an editorial, the JoongAng Ilbo said, “The United States virtually admits the suspicion of wiretapping, but insists that it is a normal spying activity.” It just becomes. Eavesdropping on the mobile phone calls of foreign leaders and eavesdropping on missions is a clear infringement of sovereignty and a criminal act ignoring privacy… Even if it’s an alliance, we have to question it,” he threatened.
On the other hand, regarding the current wiretapping problem, “There is also a possibility that Russia plotted this leak to divide the United States and its allies. We should not get caught up in this alienation with a hasty response” (Seoul Newspaper editorial on the 11th) or “We should not get excited about US wiretapping, but we also need to wake up somehow to secure even the secret atmosphere of the Joe Biden administration. That is the information diplomacy of modern countries and the iron rule of survival” (Korean Economic Daily editorial on the 10th). At the time of wiretapping in 2013, what is the difference between President Barack Obama’s explanation that “intelligence gathering is something all countries do and it is not unusual” and some of our current media reports.
Undermining the national interest is to try to dilute the sovereignty infringement and hold them accountable by locking them in the political battle. Advising the government not to act in the national interest is truly protecting our national interest.
1681770343
#Youre #talking #national #interest #press #infringement #sovereignty