단상斷想

The name Kim Eo-jun occupies a unique position at the intersection of Korean political history and public sentiment. He is a figure who has grown into a kind of 'alternative power,' going beyond being a journalist or broadcaster to spreading his unique political discourse and worldview to the public. His language is direct and sensual, and it combines provocative interpretations and conspiratorial imagination that existing mainstream media cannot provide, thereby resolving the 'psychological thirst' of audiences who are fed up with corrupt politics. The public cannot get a grasp on the dirty and complex political reality, and they try to gain 'confidence in the truth' from his resolute tone and confident interpretations. The problem arises precisely at this point. There has arisen a phenomenon of people being enthusiastic about Kim Eo-jun and believing his words to be the truth as they are. This natural public sentiment cannot be said to be bad, but from a mass psychological perspective, it is a kind of authority dependence phenomenon and a manifestation of the desire for cognitive simplification. Instead of judging or voicing their own opinions, the Kim Eo-jun fandom, who loves an agent who scratches their itchy and painful spots, should have guided him to go the right way.

In the history of Korean politics, Kim Eo-jun's status has changed in conjunction with the historical context. In the early 2000s, based on Internet media and podcasts, he established himself as an 'alternative voice against existing media.' At the time, Korean society had maximized distrust of the excessive influence of conservative media and collusion with political power, and Kim Eo-jun was like a fresh sense of liberation that broke through this. In the 2010s, he expanded his influence based on the support of the progressive camp, and in particular, through 'Naneun Ggomsuda,' he played a role in bringing young people and citizens who had fallen into political aversion back into the arena of political discourse. During this period, his broadcast provided a kind of catharsis to citizens who were disappointed with established politics. Political criticism through humor and satire was a completely new way of communication, different from the rigid and authoritarian existing media. However, as time passed, his status transformed from a non-mainstream resister to 'virtually a power.' During each change of government, his voice had a direct impact on public opinion formation and the election structure, which soon established him as a media power. In particular, in the 2017 presidential election and the 2020 general election, his influence functioned as political mobilization beyond simply presenting opinions.

Popular enthusiasm and devotion show a pattern of group identification and charismatic leader following from a psychological perspective. The characteristics of charismatic domination, as described by Max Weber, are fully manifested in the Kim Eo-jun phenomenon. His followers perceive him as a 'prophetic being' and believe that they can only understand complex political realities through his interpretations. When people find it difficult to cope with political uncertainty and complexity, they tend to follow figures who offer simple and clear interpretations as leaders. Kim Eo-jun accurately satisfied this psychological need. People who listen to his broadcasts gain a kind of 'cognitive stability' in the midst of political turmoil. Complex issues are organized into a clear structure of good and evil, and they even receive a sense of superiority that they are 'enlightened citizens who know the truth.'

However, there is a serious pitfall in this mechanism. Humans are instinctively prone to confirmation bias. They easily accept information that confirms their existing beliefs, and unconsciously exclude or distort information that contradicts them. Audiences who are accustomed to Kim Eo-jun's interpretation framework gradually lose the ability to access or accept information from other perspectives. This is the same mechanism by which humans fall into pseudo-religions, and is similar to the phenomenon that appeared in the heyday of pseudo-religions in Japan, which grew ahead of Korea and is now on the path to decline. In Korea, the Kim Eo-jun phenomenon is ongoing, but in the past, during the heyday of new religions in Japan, entertainers who interpreted and explained politics as entertainment dominated the Japanese media, transcending race. Some were foreigners, some were Japanese elders, and some were handsome actors. Various media outlets introduced Japan's superior politics in various ways, and it was a genre. Those who were swayed by political propaganda at that time can get a sense of the harsh reality that Japan's current politics does not help improve the lives of Japanese citizens, which people who have easily mastered Japanese to the point of reading Japanese manga would understand. The Kim Eo-jun phenomenon is unique because his character is so unique, but individuality and political empowerment are completely different stories. No matter how much Japan has a practice of using the same entertainer until their dentures fall out and cannot touch popular entertainers, they still know how to filter out entertainers involved with the Yakuza or those who use drugs. Of course, there are many exceptions who somehow get away with it. Compared to that, Korea is still better.

Blindly following Kim Eo-jun inevitably leads to a weakening of critical thinking. Before even considering whether his claims or interpretations are right or wrong, if a belief takes root that 'it must be true because he said it,' the public becomes trapped in a specific narrative without distinguishing between facts and interpretations. This shrinks the diversity of public opinion and the culture of debate, which are prerequisites for healthy politics, and instead creates another problem of 'exclusive dominance of media within a faction,' which is no different from the harms of existing conservative media. What is even more problematic is that this phenomenon degrades the overall debate culture of society. People who rely on Kim Eo-jun's interpretation framework gradually lose the ability to think and judge for themselves. The basic qualities of democratic citizens, such as analyzing complex political phenomena from various angles, comparing and reviewing conflicting opinions, and drawing reasonable conclusions based on evidence, are weakened. Furthermore, Kim Eo-jun has further enhanced his prestige by showing an attitude of viewing many politicians as being below him or as friends. Not long ago, Moon Jae-in declared his bromance with Kim Eo-jun to everyone, so isn't it a foregone conclusion that Kim Eo-jun is now qualified to play the role of the king's brother?

In online spaces, social media algorithms create a 'filter bubble' effect, continuously exposing users to information and opinions of similar tendencies. Kim Eo-jun's fans are constantly exposed to information that supports his point of view, which further reinforces confirmation bias. It's like Yoon Seok-yeol was obsessed with far-right YouTubers who glorified coups and dictatorships since his days as a prosecutor. And then, to use a trick to implicate the dictator's daughter in prison... In the end, did he not know that he would be caught in his own trap? How can such ugliness and stupidity coexist? The fact that the once-smart Korean was about to become a dog in front of pigs and prostitutes is still dizzying no matter how I think about it.

Side effects become more apparent over time. The pressure of being ostracized from the same community the moment you doubt Kim Eo-jun's interpretation, or the atmosphere where expressing opposing opinions is considered betrayal, is formed. This phenomenon reinforces Irving Janis's "groupthink," and reduces complex social problems to the dichotomy of good and evil, truth and falsehood. It is also clear that the characteristics of groupthink are evident in Kim Eo-jun's fandom. These include collective superiority and blind faith that even politicians and aspiring politicians are inclined to, prejudice and hostility towards outside groups, voluntary censorship of dissenting opinions, and direct pressure on members who raise dissenting opinions within the group. This provides the public with immediate psychological stability, but in the long run, it deepens social conflicts and narrows the space for democratic debate. Furthermore, this groupthink provides a 'definitive sense of reality,' serving as a psychological refuge to escape from an uneasy reality. However, this is fundamentally just an escape from reality and, rather, becomes an obstacle to solving actual social problems.

A more worrying problem is the empowerment of the press. Originally, the press should play a role in monitoring power. However, as seen in the case of Kim Eo-jun, when a journalist exerts influence equivalent to political power, the press becomes a political actor rather than a monitor. The essential functions of the press are information delivery, public opinion formation, power monitoring, and provision of a public sphere. However, in the case of Kim Eo-jun, he goes beyond these traditional media functions and plays a role closer to direct political mobilization and public opinion manipulation. His broadcasts are closer to propaganda and incitement of a specific political position than providing information. The more the public believes in him, the more his authority is strengthened, the more he can function as a power free from criticism. In this case, the press no longer checks power, but rather becomes part of the power and carries the risk of leading the public in a specific direction. In particular, when the political forces he supports seize power, his media effectively take on the character of a 'pro-government media'.

The Kim Eo-jun phenomenon reflects the simple and shallow horizon of the Korean media ecosystem. As traditional newspapers and broadcasters have decayed and become unable to fulfill their roles, weakening their influence, and new platforms such as YouTube and podcasts have come to play a decisive role in shaping public opinion, the existing media ethics and regulatory system have become almost powerless. The proliferation of single-person media has the positive aspect of increasing diversity by lowering entry barriers, but it also raises the problem of lack of accountability and professionalism. Influencer-type journalists like Kim Eo-jun can wield enormous influence without the verification processes or ethical constraints of traditional media. Moreover, algorithm-based recommendation systems tend to favor stimulating and extreme content. This provides a structurally favorable environment for figures who use煽動的な rhetoric like Kim Eo-jun. Emotional and stimulating interpretations gain more views and subscribers than calm and balanced analysis. In fact, it is correct to assume that mainstream media is too rotten to be self-sustaining in the future. State and public broadcasters have long crossed the line.

These events have led to a new form of authoritarianism in the digital age. While past authoritarianism operated through state power and institutions, current authoritarianism operates through public voluntary adherence and network effects. This is, in some ways, more subtle and dangerous. Traditional authoritarianism is easily subject to resistance because its oppressiveness is obvious. However, Kim Eo-jun-style authoritarianism is difficult to recognize for its authoritarian nature because it is packaged as 'free choice' and 'alternative media.' Followers do not feel pressured, but rather feel pride in being enlightened citizens seeking the truth. This new authoritarianism hollows out the substance of democracy while maintaining its appearance. Formally, it seems that various opinions exist and discussions take place, but in reality, true communication and consensus become impossible because they are trapped in a specific interpretation framework.

However, we must be wary of the psychology of individuals excessively relying on specific media platforms, and a reminder to voluntarily break away from algorithms is required. The media should not be a tool of power, but should play a role in ensuring the plurality of public discourse and critical thinking. The more Kim Eo-jun's media power grows, the more we must ask and criticize with a louder voice. Democracy is an imperfect, inefficient, and frustrating primitive system. However, the lesson of history is that it is currently the only way to guarantee human dignity and freedom. The development of AI is directly controlling humans, tampering with brain activity, and increasing the power to control even thinking. All of this is the result of the progress of technology and science developed under democracy and capitalism. This is not just a Korean phenomenon. The whole world is running like an arrow shot towards dystopia. Only when we open our eyes from the temporary stability provided by Kim Eo-jun's charismatic dominance can we realize which direction world politics is heading, and only then will the situation awareness work correctly. Now is not the time to fight Kim Eo-jun. In order to prevent a situation where humans cannot fulfill their functions as humans, and a world where men and women, adults and children are in conflict, we must crawl out of primitive fandom politics ourselves.

Therefore, we must embrace diversity even if it is uncomfortable, think and judge for ourselves even if it is not certain, and maintain a political method of reaching agreements through dialogue and discussion even if it is not perfect. Otherwise, the public's enthusiasm and devotion may ultimately jeopardize the system itself in this land. The most important question that the Kim Eo-jun phenomenon throws at us is this. Do we truly want freedom, or do we want comfortable authoritarianism?