단상斷想

Lee Jun-seok did not disappoint in the third presidential debate either. In short, he seems like an immature, self-satisfied adolescent who lacks basic courtesy towards his debate opponents or even respect for the viewing public, a childish 40-year-old. Is it just me who feels a sense of shame that a person of this caliber is a presidential candidate for the Republic of Korea? What do we really know about this person, Lee Jun-seok, and what does the media's report of a 10% approval rating mean, other than the fact that our nation's standards are still at this level? The lack of media scrutiny of Lee Jun-seok, the presidential candidate of the New Reform Party, is a symbolic case that goes beyond simply reporting on one politician and reveals the fundamental limitations of Korean politics and the media environment. A presidential candidate, as the highest authority in the country, must undergo thorough verification before the people, which is a basic principle of democracy, but in reality, the media coverage shows significant deviations for each candidate, and in the case of Lee Jun-seok in particular, there is a lack of systematic verification of his political betrayal and lack of consistency.

Some independent media outlets and investigative reporting agencies attempted meaningful verification of Lee Jun-seok. In April 2025, Newstapa delved deeply into the candidate's inconsistency in words and actions and suspicions of political deals, based on concrete evidence such as KakaoTalk conversations between candidate Lee Jun-seok and political broker Myung Tae-gyun. This report delved into issues not covered by existing mainstream media and reminded us of the essential need for verification of presidential candidates. In addition, some current affairs magazines, such as Sisa IN and Weekly Kyunghyang, attempted critical analysis of Lee Jun-seok's lack of political consistency and opportunistic behavior. However, these reports did not spread in mainstream conservative media or legacy media, and their public impact was limited. In particular, comprehensive verification of the contradictions between Lee Jun-seok's past remarks and current position, the lack of logical consistency in the process of party switching, and the moral laxity as a young politician is still insufficient.

Major daily newspapers such as Dong-A Ilbo, Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, and Hankook Ilbo tended to focus only on superficial issues such as changes in candidate approval ratings, whether or not unification would occur, and election strategies. These media outlets focused only on poll numbers and the possibility of conservative unification, rather than verifying Lee Jun-seok's policy feasibility, moral qualities, and leadership. In particular, there was almost no systematic analysis of Lee Jun-seok's history of political betrayal, or verification of whether his pledges could be implemented in actual political reality. Progressive media outlets such as Kyunghyang Shinmun and Hankyoreh also devoted more space to internal conflicts within the conservative camp or criticism of the Yoon Seok-yeol government, rather than critical verification of Lee Jun-seok. This shows that the Korean media is still mired in camp logic and is not properly performing its function of objectively verifying the qualifications and policies of individual candidates.

As the discussion of unification between candidates Lee Jun-seok and Kim Moon-soo emerges as a key strategy for the conservative camp, there are criticisms that some conservative media outlets are intentionally refraining from critical verification of Lee Jun-seok or focusing only on the unification frame. The criticism that this is not unrelated to the intention to create a favorable environment for the election strategy of the People Power Party and the conservative camp is gaining traction. In particular, the Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Ilbo published more articles portraying Lee Jun-seok as a young reformist politician, rather than re-examining the internal conflicts or controversies during his time as the leader of the People Power Party. This reporting pattern suggests that the media is losing its political neutrality and determining the direction of reporting according to the interests of a particular camp.

The search and seizure of media companies and journalists following the Hankyoreh's verification report on candidate Yoon Seok-yeol has had the serious consequence of undermining the media's function of verifying presidential candidates. This pressure creates a structural background in which the media cannot actively engage in candidate verification, and in particular, makes it more difficult to report critically on the ruling party or leading candidates. Public broadcasters such as SBS and MBC also appear passive in producing in-depth verification programs for presidential candidates due to political pressure and internal censorship. This is a betrayal of the public responsibility of broadcasting and has the serious consequence of infringing on the public's right to know.

Looking at Lee Jun-seok's political career, one can find a consistent pattern of opportunistic politics. He entered politics in 2011, joining the Grand National Party (now the People Power Party), but has since repeatedly left and returned to the party whenever his position within the party became unfavorable. From joining the People's Party in 2017, returning to the People Power Party in 2020, and founding the New Reform Party in 2024, his political journey has been criticized as being based on political opportunism rather than consistent philosophy or beliefs. A particularly problematic aspect is his inconsistency in words and actions during the process of moving between political parties. While serving as the leader of the People Power Party, he emphasized 'innovation and change in the party,' but in reality, he only repeated conflicts with the vested interests of the party, and the actual reform results were insignificant. His subsequent departure from the party immediately after receiving disciplinary action and founding the New Reform Party is pointed out as a representative example of a lack of political responsibility.

The most serious problem with Lee Jun-seok's migratory bird politics is the lack of consistency in his political beliefs. He has repeatedly taken contradictory steps, such as making statements supporting progressive policies while working in a conservative party, or emphasizing conservative values while promoting solidarity with the progressive camp. During his time as the leader of the People Power Party, he advocated for 'young conservatism' and attempted to differentiate himself from established politicians, but failed to present concrete policy alternatives or implementation plans. In addition, his views on North Korea policy, economic policy, and social policy have changed frequently depending on his party affiliation and the political situation. This is not simply political evolution, but rather a lack of consistent philosophy or principles, raising questions about the basic qualities that a supreme leader like the president should possess.

Another problem in Lee Jun-seok's political 행보 is opportunistic populism. He tries to gain political support by jumping on the bandwagon of young people's interests or current issues, but in reality, he often fails to present an in-depth understanding or solutions to such issues. For example, while positioning himself as the leader of youth politics, he has been criticized for lacking practical solutions to specific issues such as youth unemployment, housing problems, and barriers to social advancement. In particular, most of his pledges are often unrealistic or have unclear funding plans. This reveals a lack of policy competence as a politician and raises fundamental questions about the qualities that a presidential candidate should possess.

In Korean politics, opinion polls tend to focus on simple approval rating competition and the possibility of unification, rather than verifying candidates' policies or qualifications. The media also often accepts this without criticism, and criticisms are constantly raised that they neglect their inherent roles of the public's right to know and candidate verification. An analysis of opinion poll reports by major broadcasters such as KBS, MBC, and SBS shows that most of them simply list numbers, and it is difficult to find in-depth analysis of the background of changes in approval ratings or policy differences between candidates. This reporting pattern fails to provide voters with the information they need to properly evaluate candidates, ultimately leading to a decline in the quality of democracy.

In the case of Lee Jun-seok, his young age, SNS activities, and unique remarks are mainly the subject of attention, but the verification of his political capabilities or the validity of his pledges is being pushed to the back burner. This makes politics consumed as entertainment and deprives voters of the opportunity to make serious political judgments. In particular, even in TV debates or interview programs, only Lee Jun-seok's eloquent speech or debating skills are noted, and fact-checking on the consistency or feasibility of his remarks is insufficient. This phenomenon shows the immaturity of Korean political culture and reveals the lack of professionalism of the media. The Supreme Court legally guarantees the media's candidate verification function through a precedent that "in the case of reporting on the public interest, even if the content is false, defamation of public officials is rarely recognized." This is interpreted to mean that the media should conduct more active and critical verification of public figures such as presidential candidates. However, in reality, the media is not fully utilizing these legal guarantees, and is instead remaining in passive reporting while being mindful of political pressure or advertisers.

For a proper verification of Lee Jun-seok, a comprehensive investigative report is needed that goes beyond simple analysis of policy pledges to include his past political activities, personal connections, fundraising process, and personal qualities. The Newstapa report on Myung Tae-kyun is a good example of the possibility of such investigative reporting, but it is still limited and lacks follow-up reports. In particular, in-depth investigations are needed into the fundraising issues in Lee Jun-seok's party founding process, the background of key aides, and the sincerity of his reform will. In addition, it is urgent to systematically compare and analyze his past remarks and current positions to verify political consistency.

Thorough vetting of presidential candidates is a basic prerequisite for democracy. If the media repeats silence or biased reporting that favors a particular candidate or camp, the public's right to know is severely undermined and the quality of democracy inevitably declines. In particular, candidates like Lee Jun-seok, who advocate change and reform but in reality repeat migratory bird politics and opportunistic behavior, require balanced verification in all aspects, including their claims and actual actions, morality, political transaction suspicions, and the feasibility of policies. In future presidential elections, the media needs to restore its original watchdog role, and voters also need to maintain a critical perspective that carefully verifies the candidate's actual capabilities and consistency without being deceived by brilliant rhetoric or a young image. In particular, a stricter standard should be applied to the opportunistic behavior of political migrants like Lee Jun-seok.