단상斷想

In 2011, Kim Eo-jun, who introduced a new format to Korea's political discourse through 'Naneun Kkomsu-da' (I am a Trickster), differentiated himself from the authoritative delivery methods of traditional media with satire and humor. This sparked interest in politics among the younger generation and contributed to the spread of critical discourse against the Lee Myung-bak government. His success factors were clear: he gained public support by directly and humorously addressing political issues that traditional media either ignored or approached passively.

However, behind this success, limitations already existed. Kim Eo-jun's approach was essentially characterized by "opposition for opposition's sake," focusing on criticism and ridicule of existing power rather than offering constructive alternatives. The numerous rumors from his private life suggested that his future was not bright, and it was foreseeable that this would negatively impact the landscape of Korean political journalism.

After the death of former President 노무현, his actions, which marked the beginning of his serious political statements, already strongly revealed an emotional bond with a specific political faction. If he had clung to 노무현's death as much as 이명박 did to Darth Vader, he might not have been sleeping under the strange ground designed by architect 승효상. This later became the decisive background for him to deviate from his position as an independent journalist.

김어준's dramatic transformation became evident during the process of the 문재인 government coming to power. He functioned as a key media supporter for candidate 문재인, and after the government took office, he actively championed government policies. 문재인's direct appearance on his broadcast as president was a symbolic event that went beyond mere communication, positioning 김어준 as a de facto 'pro-문재인 journalist.' Although it was a social issue tantamount to embezzlement, the fact that it was an era where this was accepted might suggest he harbored relationships akin to those of insurrectionists. However, even during that period and currently, it is a reality that many people and politicians still revere him and consider him a touchstone in the media landscape.

Kim Eo-jun's biggest problem during this period was the loss of critical distance. Abandoning his duty as a journalist to check and monitor power, he became engrossed in unconditional advocacy for government policies and one-sided attacks on political opponents. His close relationship with the Blue House gave him significant political influence, but at the same time, it fundamentally undermined his identity as a journalist. Perhaps his appearance was, from the beginning, an unconventional infotainment that blended journalism and entertainment. However, it's possible that the public was drawn to him beyond his abilities because of his scathing attacks on the ill-gotten gains of the detestable Lee Myung-bak administration.

The most blatant manifestation of Kim Eo-jun's changed demeanor was during the Cho Kuk scandal in 2019. He made contradictory statements, supporting Cho Kuk while simultaneously expressing trust in Prosecutor General Yoon Suk-yeol. This behavior, exemplified by his "Yoon-na-ttaeng - Thank you if Yoon Suk-yeol comes out" remark, showed that his political judgment was swayed by situational interests rather than consistent values and principles. The fact that writer Gong Ji-young criticized Kim Eo-jun as "like Yoon Suk-yeol in the media" indicates that there was serious concern about his actions even within the progressive camp at the time. Kim Eo-jun, who effectively defended the Cho Kuk family by saying "I won't ask about the facts" in an interview with Cho Kuk's daughter, Cho Min, while simultaneously stating his trust in Yoon Suk-yeol, the investigator, was a clear example of how chaotic, impulsive, and opportunistic his political worldview was. I remember that at the time, there weren't many media outlets that presented images, so the public trusted Kim Eo-jun, not best-selling author Gong Ji-young. Of course, the much more seasoned Yoo Si-min is by Kim Eo-jun's side, maintaining Kim Eo-jun's position. Yoo Si-min is now on an ambiguous path as a commentator, neither a writer nor a politician.

Currently, Kim Eo-jun is no longer an independent journalist from outside. He functions as a significant variable in the internal power structure of the Democratic Party, and the results of his opinion polls directly influence the party's election strategy. When a 'flower' is placed in a private vase, it becomes a breach of trust. The sight of the Democratic Party leadership being agitated, saying, 'We're even losing in Kim Eo-jun's favorable polls,' shows that he is already deeply involved in the party's political decision-making process. What is even more problematic is the sight of Democratic Party lawmakers appearing on his broadcast and performing deep bows to the chant of 'Attention, bow!' This is a phenomenon where politicians succumb to the fandom of a specific journalist rather than the voters, severely undermining the principles of healthy democratic politics. The sight of several lawmakers greeting and escorting Kim Eo-jun upon his arrival at the National Assembly signifies that he is already being treated as a political power broker, beyond being a mere journalist.

Kim Eo-jun's actions during the transition from the Moon Jae-in administration to the Lee Jae-myung system further revealed his true nature. His strong advocacy for the 'all-in theory' in the past, and his current lack of clear opposition to the emergence of the Cho Kuk new party, shows the practical limitations of maintaining relations with the pro-Moon faction, while also indicating a strategic calculation to maintain his influence within the Lee Jae-myung system. However, one thing has been overlooked. After the rebellion, he appeared before the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee and testified about the arrest of Yang Jeong-cheol, and Chairperson Choi Min-hee first offered him security. Among those who witnessed this scene, not a few tilted their heads in confusion. The sudden, almost pleading, security offer from Yang Jeong-cheol and Choi Min-hee felt like watching a play, and I, being hard of hearing, confirmed it several times.

Representative 이재정's remark, "김어준 behind 정청래? 명심 behind 박찬대? 이재명 is bewildered," shows that concerns about 김어준's excessive influence are being expressed even within the Democratic Party. He is walking a tightrope between the pro-이재명 and pro-문재인 factions to secure his political survival, but ultimately, this means he is pursuing proximity to power itself rather than political values or beliefs. The fact that he became wealthy through Super Chats thanks to 오세훈 reflected the public's desire for sound politics, not support for 김어준, an infotainment personality who showcases political opportunism.

Currently, 김어준's most serious problem is the loss of independence and fairness, fundamental virtues for a journalist. His remark about "assassinating 한동훈" being perceived as a political attack ended up as a stale image-consuming battle that failed to generate much interest, considering his history of delivering impactful statements. If his statements no longer hold credibility as a journalist, 김어준's strong fandom could turn away. The public has already learned from 문재인 and 윤석열 that fandom politics inherently hinders critical thinking and rational debate, and has degraded politics into a form of entertainment.

Another realistic problem Kim Eo-jun faces is the rapidly changing media environment and generational change. His method, which exerted absolute influence through podcasts and radio, is gradually failing to appeal to the younger generation. In competition with young influencers active on new platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, Kim Eo-jun's traditional broadcasting style reveals clear limitations. This change in the media environment is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in Kim Eo-jun's political influence. While he still exerts considerable political influence on his main audience in their 40s and 50s, the reach of his message becomes limited as it goes to younger generations. This raises fundamental questions about his political sustainability.

Kim Eo-jun's current situation is a typical example of what happens when a journalist colludes with political power. Like many cases where journalists, who are supposed to check and monitor power, become part of that power, he could disappear into the annals of history. He should not have betrayed the days when his initial sharp critical consciousness and progressive values excited many supporters. If his early success was based on true journalistic spirit and critical consciousness, his current situation can only be evaluated as a result of betraying that spirit himself. The fall from criticism to parasitism is a conversion in another sense. This is becoming an important lesson for the Korean media. It is time to stop pretending that the Korean media is vulnerable to independence. We repeat thousands of times, but it is all our responsibility to have created a harlot regime that will go down in history. The unique role of Kim Eo-jun among the media, media, and unfortunate progressive media cannot be ignored. The short-term benefits brought by proximity to power and the influence to gaslight politicians are attractive, but this inevitably erodes a journalist's identity and social trust. Kim Eo-jun's current appearance can be said to be an example of the negative consequences of this dilemma.