[The Editors' Verdict] Concealed Power Also Fuels Fake News

Government's Response to Fake News Skewed Toward Punishment

Six Consecutive Years of Declining Full Disclosure Rates

Authorities Say "The Records Don't Exist," Citizens Left With No Way to Verify—A Gap Where Fake News Thrives

Recently, the Broadcasting, Media, and Communications Committee established the Information Integrity Policy Division. This dedicated organization for enforcing the law was set up about a month after the revised Information and Communications Network Act went into effect on July 7. Going forward, it will handle work such as policies to combat fake news, large-scale platform investigations and oversight, and administrative fines.

In an era when manipulated information undermines both individual lives and the public sphere, it is difficult to dispute the intention to impose strong accountability for false and fake information. The problem, however, is that government measures to eradicate fake news have been overly focused on penalizing the distributors of information. If only the responsibility of the speaker is strengthened, while neglecting the responsibility of those who should answer questions, fake news cannot be eradicated at its roots. Measures must also be implemented to increase access to information sources that can verify whether the information is genuine or not.

How well is the government fulfilling this responsibility? According to the most recent “Annual Information Disclosure Report” published by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, the full disclosure rate—where the government releases the exact information requested by the applicant—has declined for six consecutive years, from 83% in 2018 to 73% in 2024. Of the approximately 2.32 million information disclosure requests filed in 2024, 49% were classified as cases where the information did not exist, meaning they did not even reach a decision on whether to disclose it. When the government issues a notice of non-existence, stating, "We do not possess or manage such information," it is difficult for applicants to raise objections. They would need to challenge the claim of "non-existence" itself, but applicants have no way to verify whether the document is actually held within the agency.

There also appears to be a tendency among government entities with greater power and influence to be less willing to release information. In 2024, the average non-disclosure rate for all central administrative agencies was 7%, but the non-disclosure rates for presidential offices (38%), the Ministry of Economy and Finance (32%), and the Fair Trade Commission (37%)—all directly under the president or dealing with budgeting or regulations—were about five times higher. Of course, powerful agencies may have relatively more legitimate grounds for withholding information, such as national security. However, there are also not a few instances where this is used as a shield to delay the disclosure of information without adequate explanation.

The ongoing “special activity fund information disclosure litigation involving the prosecution,” which has lasted for more than six years, is a clear example of this. The prosecution initially declared the materials “undisclosed,” but after the lawsuit began, changed its stance to claim “non-existence.” Even after losing in the lower courts, the prosecution repeatedly appealed, dragging out the process for three years and five months until a Supreme Court decision. Even after the final ruling, it again withheld materials from other periods, forcing new lawsuits to start from scratch.

The “Yoon Suk-yeol special activity fund disclosure lawsuit” is another example where the government failed to fulfill its responsibility for information disclosure by stalling for time. Even though the civic group won in both the first and second trials, the presidential office chose to fight back in court rather than release the information. Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling, blocking the disclosure of information on the grounds that the relevant records had already been transferred to the Presidential Archives following the impeachment and early presidential election, and thus the presidential office did not possess them. As a result, the government’s tactical delays in information disclosure have, in effect, won them a free pass.

“Information integrity,” touted by the government’s anti-fake news task force, is not a light phrase. In the international community, this term does not simply refer to eliminating false information. The “Global Principles for Information Integrity” announced by the United Nations in 2024 specifies that, in addition to removing disinformation, the free circulation of accurate and reliable information that is accessible to all is another cornerstone of information integrity. Only when efforts to remove contaminants go hand in hand with supplying clean water can the information ecosystem remain healthy. Now that the focus has been placed on penalties, expectations are high that more weight will be given to information disclosure. That is truly the way to root out fake news.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.