There’s no ‘rude question’ in the dictionary

Home > Opinion > Editorials

There’s no ‘rude question’ in the dictionary

Published: 20 Nov. 2024, 20:09 Updated: 25 Nov. 2024, 17:07

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

The presidential office’s outdated view about the press dumbfounds us. In the nationally-televised press conference on Nov. 7, a Busan Ilbo reporter asked President Yoon Suk Yeol to explain exactly what he apologized for. “The general public must be embarrassed over what the president really apologized for,” the reporter said. However, appearing in the National Assembly on Tuesday, Hong Chul-ho, the president’s senior secretary for political affairs, countered with a stern statement. “Asking such questions to the president is discourtesy to him.”

Hong is a politician who made his fortune by founding a chicken-processing factory. We wonder how a two-term lawmaker can have such an anachronistic perception of the press and democracy. Does he want journalists to only dictate what the president says? Or does he demand reporters not to irk the president by asking additional questions about unclear remarks?

The presidential office clearly said there would be no restrictions on the number — and areas — of questions. The reporter asked the question just because the presidential office wanted to get more questions from journalists in the press conference. Are we living under the military governments of the past? Media organizations welcomed that question as it could help clarify the targets of Yoon’s apology.

The president certainly deserves special treatment befitting a head of state. But in press conferences, he is just one of reporters’ news sources. A democratic state cannot afford any sacrosanct areas for questions as journalists only ask questions on behalf of the people.

White House correspondents are the epitome of impolite questions. When a member of the White House Press Corps asked U.S. President Bill Clinton about the fluid on Monica Lewinsky’s dress in his joint press conference with Korean President Kim Dae-jung in 1988, Kim, standing right next to Clinton, was utterly perplexed. We wonder if Hong’s remarks in the Steering Committee of the legislature really represent the presidential office’s recognition of the episode. After an opposition lawmaker linked it to the president’s rock-bottom approval rating, Yoon’s chief of staff said, “You had better worry about your party’s approval rating,” adding, “There aren’t many political parties with more than 20 percent approval rating in Europe, too.”

The presidential office cannot excuse itself for its confusing answers over the power abuse scandal involving the first lady. Even if the president promises to revamp his governance style over and over, it will not be enough. We seriously doubt if the presidential office really conveys the real public sentiment to the president.