At the beginning of the year, the first news drawing public attention was the suspension of the National Assembly caused by uncompromising law revision activities. The broadcasting laws were at the center of controversy. The main point in revising the broadcasting laws was to allow major private companies and market-dominant newspapers to participate in broadcasting ownership by owning up to 20% of major broadcasting companies (KBS, MBC, etc.). The proposed revision of the broadcasting laws reflects the currently changed broadcasting environment where a media company needs management efficiency and competitive power in producing high-quality programming to survive in the global media market. Nevertheless, this situation has become a "hot potato"among Koreans because it reminds Koreans of past negative influences from close relations between politicians and the press, and business and the press.

Not long ago, we witnessed the government censor the press directly and indirectly. In addition, private companies force the press to stress their good points instead of their bad points. If a newspaper presents negative information about them, private companies won't advertise in that newspaper. For example, Samsung didn't advertise in Hankyoreh, a progressive newspaper, because they wrote about negative aspects of Samsung. Since advertisement is a crucial source of income for the press, they can potentially lose a lot of money.

Broadcasters have dual roles which are to contribute to the public good and, in a way, to their own financial positions. For this reason, the government and opposition parties, including the Democratic Party, represent two different positions. One is it is necessary to strengthen the competitiveness of enterprises by changing the law, and the other is to guarantee freedom of speech without any intervention of external power. The two parties even got into a scuffle. The government side argued that broadcasters are unwilling to accept a weakening of their vested rights, while the opposition claimed a conspiracy in which the government might exercise power over the press.

The freedom of the press is both a means and a prerequisite for the realization of democracy. Therefore, the press has to observe objectivity and the government and the public should also respect and practice this. Public opinion is formed through the information the press promulgates. Hence, lawmakers should guarantee the public free and comprehensive participation in the opinion-forming processes. However, there are few countries whose main policies are devised and their decisions reached with such speed as Korea's. In the case of the U.S., they spent about one year in public hearings and forums regarding revising the broadcasting laws. Considering the importance and influence of broadcasting, the speed-centered Korean culture should not be applied to revising these laws.

Likewise, the debate on broadcasting law revision needs a long-term opinion-forming process. During this process, the voice of the public should be reflected. Lawmakers shouldn't forget to discuss the main issues related to the broadcasting laws seriously rather than scuffling over them. The ruling party and opposition parties have only repeated opposing positions, but they should collect public opinion and try to persuade the public of the validity of their positions.

A more serious problem is uncompromising attitudes. We can see this through politicians' behavior in which they just argue with one another rather than trying to find solutions. Hence, the parties should have open minds and try to seek mutual harmony rather than thinking of the other parties' claims as confrontational. When we see other countries' cases about the management of newspapers and broadcasting companies, it is rare that only a certain party's claim is accepted. Most countries prudently regulate combining the management of newspapers and broadcasting companies, and even if they relax regulations, they prepare clauses which can be exercised when there is the possibility of exclusive power over the press.

Unilateral development not considering compromise does not correspond to democracy. Therefore, open debate, persuasion, negotiations, and concession should take place before the revision of the broadcasting laws.