Prosecutor Cho Eun-seok of the Special Prosecutor's Team for Investigation into Rebellion. Graphic=Hanmi Ilbo

The media's responsibility begins the moment unverified hearsay transforms into fact. If the investigative agency fails to correct this and allows it to persist, the issue extends beyond the realm of reporting to encompass the responsibility of public authority.

The outline of the case is simple. In February of this year, the Special Prosecutor's Team for Investigation into Rebellion conducted a search and seizure at the residence of former Minister of the Interior and Safety, Lee Sang-min. Five months later, in July, KBS and JTBC reported, based on hearsay from an anonymous source, that bundles of cash totaling 3.2 billion won were discovered during this process. 

However, there was no objective verification of whether a large sum of cash or physical evidence was actually found during the search and seizure. Several months later, reports emerged stating that the allegations were unfounded, but this too was merely uncertain news based on hearsay from a source, not an official announcement from the special prosecutor's team.

A more significant problem lies in the reporting methods of these media outlets. They went beyond probing the 'possibility' based on unverified hearsay and presented it as an 'established fact.'

There was a lack of even minimal cross-verification regarding the existence of the money bundles allegedly found during the search and seizure. Reporting on the counterarguments of the involved party, former Minister Lee, was merely a formality, and subsequent investigative reporting to uncover the truth was absent. Ultimately, unverified false information spread uncontrollably under the guise of fact.

Freedom of the press comes with responsibility. If unverified information is reported as fact, it should be corrected by the media themselves before any external action is taken. Particularly when dealing with matters directly related to the exercise of public authority, the verification process itself must become the standard for reporting. When that standard is compromised, the media loses credibility.

However, this matter cannot be closed here because another entity that should have corrected the truth turned a blind eye.

The special prosecutor's team, which would have been acutely aware of the existence of the cash during the execution of the search and seizure, refused even minimal fact-checking. This is not a request to disclose investigative secrets; it is a request to confirm the basic fact of whether cash bundles were seized. Yet, the special prosecutor's team remained silent, and the distorted facts were ultimately solidified as established truths without correction.

Legally speaking, the responsibility lies separately with the two parties.

While the media may face legal challenges regarding defamation due to the dissemination of false information, the special prosecutor's team, even before being subject to criminal punishment, must be evaluated on how they exercised the public authority granted by law. Failing to exercise the discretion to publicize investigative results constitutes an 'abdication of discretion' under administrative law, and furthermore, they should be held responsible for 'passive complicity' by condoning false reporting through inaction.

The media used 'hearsay during investigation' as a shield, and the special prosecutor's team maintained distance by remaining silent and adhering to the stance that it was 'not an official announcement.'

While explicit collusion between the two parties cannot be definitively concluded, the narrative changes if their respective choices ultimately led to the same outcome of allowing the distortion of truth. When their actions of not correcting the facts traced a single trajectory, their responsibility must be strictly assessed from the perspective of a potential 'tacit agreement.'

What is needed now is verification, not interpretation. Whether a tacit agreement exists is a matter of fact-finding beyond subjective evaluation, and this must be investigated through official investigative procedures.

The media must restore journalistic ethics, and the special prosecutor's team must fulfill its public duty with transparent explanations instead of hiding behind silence. If this situation is allowed to pass without consequence once again, this structural corruption will inevitably repeat itself.