Behind the symbols of old media, stacked like a funeral altar of old newspapers and defunct TVs, the silhouettes of citizens' protest signs flicker. It visualizes how the street cry of "rigged election, re-election" is becoming a funeral dirge for the downfall of old media. [Photo=Hanmi Ilbo Graphic]The press is not an institution that reigns over its readers and viewers. It is an institution that provides facts and issues so that the public can see, hear, and judge.

However, at some point, some media outlets began to lecture readers and viewers instead of representing them. They interpreted public anger, evaluated voter choices, and packaged their own conclusions under the guise of 'common sense' and 'reason.'

The Old Media Trap Shown by JTBC

JTBC was the first to walk down that path. Explaining JTBC's crisis solely by its recent revealed management deterioration or financial problems misses the point. The crisis revealed in numbers is merely the final outcome.

The deeper cause is the collapse of trust with viewers. At its root lay overconfidence and arrogance, and the illusion of old media ignoring the changes in the media environment.

In the past, when broadcasters set the agenda, viewers followed. When newspapers set the direction with their editorials, readers understood the world within that framework. But now, it is different. YouTube, social media, alternative media, and citizen networks have dismantled the monopolistic interpretive power of traditional media.

Readers and viewers are no longer passive consumers. They have become active agents who find, compare, verify, and judge for themselves.

Yet, old media remains trapped in the grammar of the past. They believe that if they select the agenda and create the frame, the public will follow. That very overconfidence is arrogance.

Viewers changed, but broadcasters did not. The market fragmented, but broadcasters mistakenly believed that a centrally controlled public opinion structure was still in operation. Financial problems are merely lagging indicators that have surfaced late.

Han Dong-hoon is a Catalyst, Not the Cause

JTBC is just the beginning. The Chosun Ilbo and TV Chosun also stand before the same trap. Old mastheads, high recognition, and familiar channel numbers are no longer shields.

Conservative readers and viewers have already changed. They do not judge solely by the pages and screens. They watch field footage, look up legal documents, and verify with each other through YouTube and social media.

Yet, the Chosun Ilbo and TV Chosun still seem to believe they are the gatekeepers of conservative public opinion. They seem to think they can set the direction for conservatives, choose the faces of conservatism, and dictate the path that conservative voters should follow.

The representative catalyst for this is Han Dong-hoon.

There is no need to view the relationship between Han Dong-hoon and the Chosun Ilbo/TV Chosun as a private one. There is no reason to speak of private collusion that has not been publicly confirmed.

The core is the political function. Han Dong-hoon has become a reference point for some conservative media when judging the internal affairs of conservative parties.

The Jang Dong-hyuk system and the street-level conservative voters are contrasted as old and rough conservatives, while Han Dong-hoon is presented as a conservative of reason and common sense. This very framing is a lecture to readers and viewers.

However, the questions conservative readers and viewers are asking now are not about Han Dong-hoon's return to the party.

Was the election fair? Was the right to vote guaranteed? Did the Election Commission take responsibility? Why are special counsel investigations and parliamentary audits necessary? Why did demands for a re-election erupt on the streets?

To set up a particular politician as a symbol of 'reasonable conservatism' while ignoring these questions is an evasion of the essence.

Why Can't They Say 'Rigged Election'?

The bigger problem is the attitude of old media, which had dismissed the notion of a rigged election as a far-right conspiracy theory.

What swept over them like a whirlwind was the incident of disenfranchisement in the June 3rd local elections. There were not enough ballots, voters could not cast their votes, and voting was suspended at some polling stations. The exercise of the right to vote, the starting point of an election, was blocked due to the failure of state institutions to manage it.

If this cannot be called a rigged election, then what can?

The term 'rigged election' is not only used for manipulating the vote count of a specific candidate. If an election was not managed properly or justly, it is also a rigged election.

If voters were prevented from voting, it is not a mere administrative error. It is an event where the freedom, fairness, and equality of the election were compromised. It is an event where the right to participate in politics, which the state must guarantee, was revoked.

As the true nature of the Election Commission is revealed, they are in disarray. Until now, they dismissed inquiries about loopholes and suspicions in election management as conspiracy theories. They labeled citizens who questioned the problems with early voting and vote counting procedures as far-right. They uncritically accepted the Election Commission's explanations and reported them as de facto conclusions when the Election Commission denied them.

That was not oversight. It was close to acting as a megaphone amplifying the Election Commission's statements.

The responsibility does not lie solely with the National Assembly members who acted as a shield without properly questioning the Election Commission's accountability. If the National Assembly, which should have held the Election Commission in check, remained silent or complicit, then the media, which should have monitored the Election Commission, also bears significant responsibility.

The silence or ambiguous stance of the Chosun Ilbo and TV Chosun on Election Commission issues, in particular, was a disregard for what the readers and viewers were shouting on the streets.

The reason they cannot utter the words 'rigged election' is clear. The moment they do, they will be acknowledging the concerns raised by citizens that they had previously dismissed as conspiracy theories.

Their reporting, which had effectively become a mouthpiece without sufficiently verifying the Election Commission's statements, will inevitably be put under scrutiny. That is why they cannot speak. This is the essence of their disarray.

The Judgment Has Already Begun

The citizens on the streets have already delivered their verdict: "Rigged election, re-election."

This slogan is not merely a political slogan. It is a question that old media has ignored, a responsibility that the Election Commission has tried to cover up, and a conclusion that the political establishment has tried to avoid.

At the same time, this slogan is becoming a funeral dirge for old media.

When the press becomes a megaphone for power rather than a watchdog, it loses trust. When it tries to lecture readers and viewers instead of representing them, it is judged in the market. No matter how old its masthead, it becomes an empty shell if readers and viewers leave.

The future of conservatism is not decided in the editorial office of the Chosun Ilbo. It is not appointed in the TV Chosun studio. It is not determined by whether Han Dong-hoon returns to the party.

The future of conservatism lies in the hands of voters demanding fairness in their voting rights, citizens questioning the legitimacy of elections, and the people shouting for a re-election on the streets.

JTBC was just the beginning.

Media that turn their backs on readers and viewers will perish. Media that ignore changes in the media environment will also perish. Media that still believe they can shape public opinion, sway readers, and lecture viewers will perish even faster.

"Rigged election, re-election" was a slogan that old media mocked. But now, that slogan is becoming a funeral dirge for media that have ignored their readers and viewers.

The media makes the choice, but the readers and viewers deliver the judgment. And that judgment has already begun.