The Political Discourse Cartel Brought to its Knees by YouTube. / Hanmi Ilbo Graphic  

 1. YouTube: A New Leviathan

  Until Gutenberg's printing press emerged in Germany, the Latin Bible was a secret scripture accessible only to the clergy, the highest authority within the Church. Ordinary believers could only hear the voice of God through the pronouncements of the clergy during church services. The clergy, exploiting this "information monopoly," engaged in various fraudulent activities, such as selling indulgences.

  However, with the proliferation of printing technology and the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages, it became accessible to the public. Believers could then read, interpret, and directly communicate with God themselves. In essence, diligent study allowed any follower to become a priest. Martin Luther, the German Reformer, described this as the "priesthood of all believers."

  Today, a similar phenomenon is unfolding in a different form: "journalism for all." The conduit for this is YouTube, which enables social networking services (SNS) and one-person media. Newspapers and broadcasters, which have long monopolized information, are now having their vested interests dismantled by these various SNS and one-person media outlets. This is why attempts to spread fake news are no longer effective. Despite mainstream media outlets heaping praise on President Lee Jae-myung's visit to the United States, the public is witnessing the truth firsthand. This must be incredibly disheartening for the old media.

  Even though this news revolution has been underway for a considerable time, legacy and old media outlets took a significant while to realize it. Consider the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. At the time, there was a YouTube video titled "Complete Compilation of Media Distortion, Manipulation, and Misreporting Regarding the Choi Soon-sil Scandal." Uploaded on December 4, 2016, it had garnered exactly 401,120 views by January 12 of the following year.

  This video begins with footage from Donald Trump's campaign rallies during the US presidential election. Trump is seen on stage, launching into a tirade against major US television networks like ABC and CBS. "They don't want to show the people who are here. They are very dishonest people. Look at the cameraman in the center. Turn the camera, turn it!"

  (The cameras were focused only on the area around the stage where a small number of spectators were seated. Despite Trump's protest, the broadcast cameras remained unmoved.)

  "Look! They're not turning the camera. Pathetic, pathetic..."

  After Trump's denunciation, a camera in the audience directly pans to the massive crowd filling the stadium. Trump then exposes that he orchestrates these rally scenes three times a day. It's a masterstroke where a single YouTuber slaps the face of mainstream TV companies with their astronomical budgets. The YouTuber's only weapon was a portable camera.

  So, what was the final outcome of the US election at that time? Despite major media outlets acting in concert and proclaiming Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency at over 95%, the result was the opposite. Trump, whom the old media had thoroughly ignored, emerged victorious.

  The driving force behind that victory was the power of SNS and YouTube. One-person media and YouTube, enabled by a single smartphone, have the characteristic of being easily shareable and infinitely reproducible, unlike newspapers and broadcasters. Even though traditional media ignored him, one-person media outlets delivered the facts, and countless voters opened hidden doors to witness the truth. How is this different from the moment the Bible was opened to the public?

  In last year's US presidential election, Trump was again ignored by the mainstream media. Only FOX News and the polling firm Rasmussen predicted Trump's lead. Almost all existing mass media outlets reported that Democratic candidate Kamala Harris was showing strength. The result? A landslide victory for Trump. After the election, Elon Musk, who had participated in Trump's campaign, confidently declared, "The mainstream media in America has fallen, and X (Twitter) has become the real media." It is said that South Korean conglomerates, clinging to the erroneous reporting of traditional media, ended up making only political donations to the Kamala campaign and were consequently left to bear the brunt of the loss.

  During the height of his presidential campaign in late October 2024, Trump appeared on the podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience" for three hours, criticizing the Democratic Party for supporting media censorship. Rogan's podcast has an immense social influence, with 14.5 million followers on Spotify, 17.6 million subscribers on YouTube, and it is a leading content on Apple Podcasts. Joe Rogan is simply a one-person media entity. He has confronted and triumphed over the US mainstream media.

  This phenomenon is not limited to the American media. A similar trend has been evident in our society for a long time. One-person media outlets are now springing up like mushrooms on YouTube. The surprising fact is that many of them are recording tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of views. A YouTube video titled "The National Election Commission Ruined South Korea," created by Hankil Jeon, a top public service exam instructor in Korean history, surpassed 2 million viewers within days of its upload as of January 20. The YouTube video "An Appeal to the 20s and 30s Generation and the Citizens" had an even more devastating impact, exceeding 3 million views in just one day after being posted, with 360,000 likes. A right-wing YouTuber named Ground C sometimes surpasses hundreds of thousands, even a million, views immediately after uploading a video. For even the most subscribed or viewed media outlets in South Korea, 1 to 3 million views is an unattainable dream.

  "Jeong Gyu-jae's Interview with President Park Geun-hye," uploaded on January 25, 2017, garnered 1.95 million views in just fifteen days. Among the viewer comments was this: "We don't need major media anymore. Because of the internet, messages can be delivered quickly and broadly at a low cost. Even one-person media can succeed if it has brand value based on reliability and fairness. South Korea, an IT powerhouse, has tested this in this instance." This was a remarkable eight years ago.

  The primary culprits for fertilizing and nurturing the powerful influence of YouTube and SNS are, of course, the existing newspapers and broadcasters. The more mainstream media ignores the truth and engages in biased, distorted, and manipulated reporting, and the more it promotes fake news and propaganda, the more ordinary citizens flock to YouTube and SNS. There, they confirm facts (truth), share opinions, and form collective public opinion.

 2. Old Media at the 'Precipice'

  Can newspapers and broadcasters truly be confident in their ability to win in shaping public opinion against YouTube? This question has long been moot. Nevertheless, the stubborn complaints of the old media show no signs of repentance. In mid-January, an article appeared in C Newspaper, one of the mainstream newspapers, with the title " 'Mom, Please Stop Watching Political YouTube'...Children Organizing Their Parents' Accounts." The gist of the article is as follows:

  "An increasing number of children are stepping in to 'purify YouTube algorithms' to protect their parents from 'disinformation.' This is because many YouTubers spread unverified information or make extreme claims about social issues.

  Posts are also being shared on social media on how to 'organize parents' YouTube algorithms.' These include instructions like 'Log in to your parents' account and click the 'not interested' button on strange videos,' 'Subscribe to (media outlet) news channels,' and 'Watch peaceful videos that your parents rarely watch.'

  Professor Kim Chun-sik of the Department of Media and Communication at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies stated, 'Middle-aged and older adults over 50 are likely to develop entrenched biased views due to algorithmic exposure to similar content, so it is necessary to apply the same level of deliberation and regulation to YouTube as to broadcasting.'"

  The article clearly displays overt intellectual contempt for individuals over 50. It dictates that middle-aged and older adults lack the ability to choose YouTube videos themselves and expresses concern that parents are constantly exposed to false information. It's as if the journalist, echoing former politician Yoo Si-min's remark that "brains rot after the age of 60," is shamelessly revealing a similar level of consciousness. Aren't they implying that their own parents and other older people around them have brains that have largely rotted? They fail to consider that the journalists themselves within their newspaper's editorial department are operating like robots, brainwashed by a specific algorithm.

  I would like to ask the professor: Why do they turn a blind eye to the possibility of entrenched biased thoughts due to exposure to similar content, not merely the "influence" of algorithms, but because of the algorithms of newspapers and broadcasters themselves, which are the "very essence" of fake news? If YouTube is the problem, shouldn't newspapers, riddled with the same maladies, also be subject to the same level of deliberation and regulation as broadcasting? The "customer-tailored answers" for journalists are also too naive. Or did the journalist delete the part where it was pointed out that newspapers also need to be regulated?

  Many mainstream media outlets today upload a significant portion of their current affairs programs to YouTube. Individual journalists are also active on YouTube. C Newspaper is particularly strong in this area. However, I worry about the emergence of children who might apply the advice "Log in to your parents' account and click the 'not interested' button on strange videos" to these YouTube channels. I trust that young liberal conservatives would not engage in such absurd behavior.

  Another influential newspaper, D Newspaper, posted a "YouTube Criticism" article (January 27th) and subsequently conveyed the newspaper's sentiments through the words of professors.

  "Professor Na Eun-young of Sogang University's Department of Communication said, 'YouTube itself makes money only if people watch it,' adding, 'This is a structure that perpetuates a vicious cycle in the long run.' Professor Jeon Sang-jin of Sogang University's Department of Sociology pointed out, 'YouTubers need to be controlled through tax investigations regarding their profits,' and 'Platforms like YouTube themselves need to have measures for accountability.'"

  Wait a minute! Can newspapers make money even if people don't watch them? Aren't they also trapped in a cycle of vicious correlation in the long run? Why should mainstream media be exempt from tax investigations? Are newspapers not required to uphold the virtues of reliability and fairness? It appears that legacy media are filled with a victim complex regarding YouTube.

  Articles like "Faces Emphasized, Yellow Captions, Sensational Titles...YouTube's Recommended Political Channels Were Eerily Similar" from J Newspaper on April 23rd, and the editorial "YouTube, a Breeding Ground for Fake News for Profit and Political Polarization" in C Newspaper on the same day, contain nothing different in content. They still show envy towards YouTube's political news channels. C Newspaper states, "To prevent this, Google's internal regulations and self-regulatory efforts are needed first. The YouTube algorithm, which has become a means of making money, also needs to be improved." There is no mention of competing with YouTube's news channels through fair reporting and journalistic integrity in the media market. It is merely a plea to the referee to break the opponent's legs so they cannot play. Is the criticism that "YouTube has become a breeding ground for fake news and harmful information for profit, and it is fostering political polarization, social conflict, and division" solely applicable to YouTube's political channels? Respond.

 3. Representative Jang Dong-hyuk's Victory, Created by YouTube

  On August 26th, Representative Jang Dong-hyuk was elected as the new party leader at the People Power Party's national convention. What does Jang Dong-hyuk's victory at this convention signify? First, it represents a defeat for Han Dong-hoon and a victory for former President Yoon Suk-yeol. Second, it signifies the "new media environment." In his acceptance speech, Representative Jang emphasized, "Today's victory is a victory created by the party members, and a victory created by the new media environment."

  Throughout the convention process, Representative Jang waged an online public relations battle, particularly based on YouTube. After his victory, he acknowledged their influence, stating, "Conservative YouTubers almost unanimously supported me."

  It is also noteworthy that Representative Jang Dong-hyuk and Supreme Council member Kim Min-soo were not swayed by the frames set by legacy media, including left-wing media, Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, and their affiliated general programming channels, throughout the primary elections.

  It is undeniable that conservative right-wing parties in South Korea, represented by the People Power Party, until recently, danced to the tune of Chosun, JoongAng, and Dong-A Ilbo and were eager to please them. These mainstream media outlets adopted a stance of following the prevailing trend and engaging in performative resistance towards left-wing political forces, while simultaneously acting imperiously towards the People Power Party. Is this not surprising? Tracing the commonalities among politicians like Kim Moo-sung, Kim Chong-in, Lee Jun-seok, Han Dong-hoon, and Yoon Hee-sook reveals the preferences of Chosun, JoongAng, and Dong-A Ilbo.

  During this national convention, both left-wing media and Chosun, JoongAng, and Dong-A Ilbo explicitly supported candidates like Cho Gyeong-tae, Ahn Cheol-soo, and Kim Geun-sik over candidates like Jang Dong-hyuk, Kim Moon-soo, and Kim Min-soo. After the main primary of the People Power Party, where Jang Dong-hyuk and Kim Moon-soo advanced to the final round and Cho Gyeong-tae and Ahn Cheol-soo were eliminated, Chosun, JoongAng, and Dong-A Ilbo uniformly criticized the direction of the People Power Party's national convention.

  The editorial title of a certain newspaper that day was "The People Power Party Convention Running in the Opposite Direction of Public Sentiment." It lamented, "The convention, held to recover from the presidential election defeat, should have been a stage for competing to shed ties with former President Yoon, reform the party, and regain public trust...The People Power Party convention has not only divided into anti- and pro-this but also into anti- and pro-that. Many citizens are shaking their heads at the People Power Party being swayed by a single political YouTuber...Those who hoped for the reconstruction of an opposition party to check the rampant actions of a powerful ruling bloc can only sigh."

  However, candidates Jang Dong-hyuk and Kim Min-soo showed no inclination to align with this framing by the old media. Instead, they joined forces with so-called new media, including liberal conservative YouTube channels and online media outlets that old media detests. It was a groundbreaking moment, demonstrating that a new era is dawning on the South Korean political stage.

  Currently, the Democratic Party and President Lee Jae-myung are pouring all their efforts into controlling domestic media. The "Broadcasting Act Amendments" are a well-known example. Not only is the Broadcasting Act being revised to allow the left-wing political establishment to permanently control public broadcasters, but it also includes provisions to change the presidents and chief editorial officers of YTN and Yonhap News TV. These two are private, not public, broadcasters. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party has mandated the formation of a president recommendation committee in agreement with labor unions. With this, President Lee Jae-myung will be able to control most broadcasting channels within two months of his inauguration.

  The Democratic Party's reach is even more extensive. They are well aware that controlling only broadcasting is insufficient. Recently, the Democratic Party has also been extending its clandestine influence to YouTube, which has a decisive impact on conservative right-wing public opinion. They are employing tactics to pressure YouTube Korea or Google to suppress conservative right-wing media.

  The most effective tool for this is the controversial Online Platform Act (OnPlatform Act). YouTube, Google, Meta, Amazon, and Netflix use South Korea's communication networks. The focus is on imposing network usage fees based on this fact. If this law passes, the government will have a means to enforce its will upon American big tech companies using tax leverage. This is how they intend to identify and eliminate conservative right-wing media outlets they dislike.

  Big tech regulation almost succeeded. However, the world is not that simple. U.S. President Donald Trump, via his social media platform Truth Social on August 25th, stated, "As President of the United States, I will stand up to countries that attack our American technology companies," adding, "Digital taxes, digital service laws, and digital market regulations are all designed to harm or discriminate against American technology. They are absurdly granting exemptions to China's largest technology companies."

  President Trump then emphasized that he would respond with additional sanctions against countries that impose regulations on their own information technology (IT) companies. "Unless these discriminatory measures are removed, as President of the United States, I will impose significant additional tariffs on that country's exports to the U.S. and introduce restrictions on the export of technologies and semiconductors that we strictly protect," he stated. With additional tariffs, and especially with advanced technologies and semiconductors, South Korea's IT industry would face closure overnight.

  The enactment of the OnPlatform Act was, in fact, a key pledge of President Lee Jae-myung. However, surprisingly, the content regarding the enactment of the OnPlatform Act has disappeared from the government's recently announced 5-year national administration plan. While the Democratic Party has postponed discussions on the OnPlatform Act until after the South Korea-U.S. summit, there are observations that it has effectively been shelved due to President Trump's remarks.

  Although the Democratic Party is considering alternative legislative strategies, such as incorporating bills to improve unfair distribution structures into the Fair Trade Act or the Electronic Commerce Act rather than the OnPlatform Act, if these laws have the de facto effect of the OnPlatform Act, the 'trigger' of trade friction will inevitably re-emerge. In any case, they have lost the means to control conservative right-wing new media, which have moved beyond old media to establish new homes on YouTube, Google, and Meta. The Democratic Party and Lee Jae-myung may be realizing that they are too old to keep up with the new revolution in the media market.

 Lee Shin-woo, Former Editorial Writer for Munhwa Ilbo & Author of 'Election Fraud and Traitors'