Screenshot of the Women's Economic Daily websiteKim Sang-soon, a Ph.D. in International Relations from Peking University and an expert on Chinese affairs, has filed a formal request with the Press Arbitration Commission against a report by the Women's Economic Daily, demanding a correction, the deletion of parts of the article, and 100 million won in damages.

On July 19, the Women's Economic Daily referred to Dr. Kim as a "key figure" in the Charhar Institute, reporting that he was involved in organizing and formulating the slogans for the Olympic Park protests, effectively portraying him as an extension of China's foreign influence operations.

Dr. Kim has refuted these claims, stating that they are the exact opposite of the truth. He explained that he was expelled from the institute in September 2024 after publicly exposing its attempts to interfere in the South Korean presidential election, and has since been campaigning for the expulsion of Confucius Institutes and leading "CCP Out" and "No More Rigged Elections" movements. He also asserted that he had no involvement in organizing the Olympic Park protests or drafting their slogans.

The Olympic Park civil protest began as citizens gathered around the handball gymnasium to protest the ballot paper shortage that occurred in Songpa-gu during the June 3 local elections. Initially, many young people in their 20s and 30s participated, putting forward "re-election" and "infringement of suffrage" as their primary slogans.

Dr. Kim’s request for a correction concerns the factual accuracy of reports regarding an individual. However, this case should be examined in conjunction with other media reports covering the Olympic Park civil protest.

This is because reports have moved from disputing the estimated number of protesters to characterizing the entire assembly as "far-right-led" based on a few flags and slogans, eventually escalating to the point of identifying a specific participant as a figure connected to Chinese influence operations.

This does not imply that these reports are linked. They are articles written independently at different times. However, one can compare the grounds provided by the media when they move beyond counting heads or describing scenes to judging the character of a group or an individual's background.

Screenshot of YTN broadcast"About 100 people in the marching column"... What was the basis for this count?

In a live broadcast from the Olympic Park handball gymnasium at 1:57 PM on June 6, YTN reported that participants were positioned by the dozens at each of the 10 entrances to the stadium, and that the column marching around the gymnasium consisted of "about 100 people." In a separate report, it noted that the total number of participants at the scene was estimated by the police to be 2,800.

Therefore, YTN did not report that the total number of people at the protest was 100. "About 100 people" was a description of the column marching around the stadium.

However, in footage obtained by our publication, a participant watching the broadcast can be seen pointing at the marching column on the screen and immediately protesting, asking, "Is that 100 people?" and "Are you saying that's 100 people?"

One participant’s protest alone cannot definitively prove the YTN report wrong, as the released footage does not capture the entire procession from front to back in a single shot, making it difficult to accurately recount the participants.

Conversely, the broadcast provided no data that would allow readers to verify the accuracy of the "about 100 people" figure presented by YTN.

It is unclear whether the figure was tallied by the police or other relevant agencies, estimated by the reporter on-site by eye, or calculated after verifying the entire procession. The broadcast also failed to explain which point or section of the moving procession served as the basis for the count.

What has been confirmed is that YTN presented a specific number, and a participant at the scene who watched the broadcast immediately raised an issue, claiming it differed from reality.

The issue here is not about pre-judging the YTN report as misinformation. It is about whether the media, while presenting specific figures, also disclosed the source and methodology so that readers could judge the reliability of the estimation.

Screenshot of MBC broadcast

"Appearance of far-right participants" vs. "Far-right-led" are different judgments

A step further than the controversy over the estimation of the number of people was MBC’s characterization of the protest.

In a report on June 7, MBC stated that as of 8:00 PM, approximately 38,000 people had gathered at the Olympic Park, according to police estimates. It noted that many young people in their 20s and 30s were visible, and that participants avoided using the Stars and Stripes, carried only the Taegeukgi, and posted notices rejecting party intervention, with the main slogans being "re-election" and "infringement of suffrage." MBC assessed that there was a palpable atmosphere of wanting to distance the protest from conspiracy theories about rigged elections.

However, the tone of MBC's reporting shifted six days later, on June 13.

MBC reported that as of 3:00 PM that day, the number of participants had dropped to 3,000 from the unofficial police estimate of 10,000 on June 6. It noted that the Stars and Stripes had appeared at the scene, along with slogans such as "Rigged Election," "Voting on Election Day & Manual Counting," and "ROK-U.S. Cooperation & International Investigation," as well as banners supporting former President Yoon Suk-yeol and shouting from some elderly participants.

Based on this, MBC concluded that the space previously held by young people had been effectively encroached upon by far-right and "Yoon Again" forces, and that the departure of the younger generation was accelerating. The following day, *News Today* re-reported the same content under the title "Youth Depart, Far-Right Takes the Lead."

It is not that MBC failed to provide any on-site evidence.

The police estimate of a decrease in participants, the appearance of the Stars and Stripes and new banners, the change in slogans, and the radical remarks of some participants were all captured on camera. The observation that "participants and arguments that can be assessed as having far-right leanings appeared at the site" is supported by the reporting.

However, the appearance of far-right participants and the judgment that far-right forces have come to lead the entire protest are different things.

To conclude that the leadership of a protest has shifted, it is necessary to verify changes in the protest organizers, speakers on the podium, major participating groups, and the proportion that these forces hold within the total number of participants.

The MBC report did not present findings on who had handed over the operational control of the protest to whom. It also did not indicate what portion of the 3,000 total participants were holding the Stars and Stripes or "Yoon Again" banners.

The basis for the judgment that "youth are leaving" was also not sufficiently explained.

Although MBC reported that the number of participants had decreased from 10,000 to 3,000 at the same time, it did not present the number or proportion of participants by age group for the two points in time. The report itself even acknowledged that a significant number of young people were present at the scene on June 13.

The report also does not confirm any interviews with the people involved to determine how much the youth participation had actually decreased, or if they left due to the appearance of "Yoon Again" or far-right participants.

Other variables that could affect the scale of participation, such as the duration of the protest, the time of day, weather, and the difference between weekdays and weekends, were also not presented.

What MBC showed were new flags, banners, slogans, and the emergence of shouting. In contrast, "far-right-led," "effectively encroached," and "youth departure due to this" are interpretations and causal relationships that go beyond observed facts.

The observation that far-right participants appeared, the judgment that far-right forces are leading the protest, and the causal claim that young people left due to far-rightization are all statements that require separate evidence.

While MBC provided scenes to support the first judgment, it failed to provide representative survey data to prove the second and third conclusions.

Beyond characterizing the protest, identifying a specific person as part of a "Chinese network"

The Women's Economic Daily report went beyond evaluating the scale or nature of the protest and linked a specific individual to China’s foreign influence operations.

The Women's Economic Daily referred to Dr. Kim Sang-soon as a "key figure" in the Charhar Institute and reported as if he were involved in organizing the Olympic Park protests, formulating their slogans, and functioning as an extension of China's influence operation network.

Dr. Kim has refuted this, stating it is the exact opposite of the truth. He stated that he was expelled from the institute in September 2024 after publicly exposing its attempts to interfere in the South Korean presidential election, and has since been campaigning for the expulsion of Confucius Institutes and leading "CCP Out" and "No More Rigged Elections" movements. He maintains that he had no involvement in organizing the Olympic Park protests or drafting their slogans.

The investigative process and the use of photos have also been raised as issues. Dr. Kim’s side claims that the Women's Economic Daily did not request fact-checking or comments before reporting, and that it used photos of Dr. Kim and Charhar Institute Chairman Han Fangming, provided during an interview with another media outlet, without permission, while attributing the source to "Kim Sang-soon."

Dr. Kim has requested a correction, the deletion of related text and photos, identical measures for articles supplied to web portals, and 100 million won in damages. However, the mere fact that a request for correction has been filed does not confirm that the Women's Economic Daily report is false. The currently released document is an application containing the claims and request details of Dr. Kim’s side.

The core of this stage is whether the Women's Economic Daily secured objective investigative material to identify Dr. Kim as an organizer of the protest slogans and a figure in China’s influence network, and whether it went through the process of verifying with the person involved and seeking a rebuttal before reporting.

Screenshot of MBC broadcastHow did numbers and scenes become the "whole truth"?

The issues in the three reports differ.

YTN estimated the marching column at "about 100 people" but did not explain the source of the count or the methodology in the broadcast. While it was not confirmed whether the number was erroneous, protests against the downplayed estimate were immediately raised at the scene.

MBC presented scenes of changes on the ground, such as the Stars and Stripes, "Yoon Again" banners, new slogans, and some radical remarks. However, it did not provide sufficient survey data to support the judgment that such scenes signified a change in the protest's leadership and the departure of the younger generation.

The Women's Economic Daily went a step further, reporting that a specific individual was involved in organizing the protest and its slogans, and was part of China’s influence operation network. The person involved has completely denied this and has initiated a request for a correction.

The level of reporting has increased from a number of "about 100 people," to a group characterization of "far-right-led," and finally to identifying an individual as part of a "Chinese influence network."

However, it is questionable whether the evidence behind the reporting has become stronger as the level of expression and judgment has increased.

The media can estimate the number of people at a protest. It can also report on radical remarks and political slogans that appear, and it is the media's role to analyze the composition of participants and changes in the nature of a protest.

However, if a number is presented, who calculated it and how must be disclosed. If the character of the entire protest is defined, evidence must be presented that a few scenes represent the whole. If a specific individual is linked to a foreign influence operation, not only must the person involved be contacted for verification and rebuttal, but investigative material proving that connection must follow.

The problem with the reports on the Olympic Park civil protest is not that the media reported uncomfortable scenes.

The core issue is whether confirmed facts, the reporter’s interpretations, and allegations under investigation were clearly distinguished, and whether the media followed the necessary verification processes while a single number, a few scenes, and unconfirmed connections were cemented as the "whole truth" of the situation.