Park Soo-hyun, the Democratic Party candidate for Chungnam Governor, and Kim Tae-heum, the People Power Party candidate for Chungnam Governor [Photo=MBC screen capture

President Lee Jae-myung was angered by Starbucks' 'Tank Day' and 'Tap on the Desk' slogans. However, he remains silent in the face of an incident where a specific candidate's entire one-minute opening statement was deleted during a TV debate for the Chungnam gubernatorial candidates.

While the President's language was mobilized for a single corporate slogan, his language is absent in the case of an incident that undermined the fairness of election broadcasting.

This silence is not trivial. Elections are fundamental to the order of liberal democracy, and candidate debates are public procedures that guarantee voters' right to judgment.

Approximately one minute of People Power Party candidate Kim Tae-heum's opening statement was omitted from the Chungnam gubernatorial candidate TV debate broadcast by Daejeon MBC on the 21st.

Democratic Party candidate Park Soo-hyun's opening statement was broadcast, but Candidate Kim's was missing.

The People Power Party viewed this as an act of undermining election fairness, visited Daejeon MBC to protest, and filed a complaint with the Chungnam Provincial Police Agency against the production team for violating the Public Official Election Act.

Daejeon MBC apologized, stating it was a "mistake made during the editing process of retakes that occurred during the recording," and announced plans to release the original footage and rebroadcast the debate.

One Minute Gone from Election Broadcast

This incident cannot be resolved merely with an apology and a rebroadcast.

The core issue is not just whether it was intentional. If it was intentional, it constitutes interference with election broadcasting; if it was unintentional, it signifies a collapse of the election broadcasting management system.

Either way, the fact remains that a broadcast with a specific candidate's opening remarks missing was actually delivered to voters.

Election broadcast debates are not ordinary television programs. They are public procedures that guarantee equal conditions for candidates and provide voters with information to compare candidates based on the same criteria.

This is why election broadcast debates should be treated as part of the election process, not merely as broadcast content.

Therefore, it is difficult to argue that a mistake did not harm the fairness of the election.

In election broadcasting, fairness is not determined solely by the intentions in the minds of the production team. What voters actually saw and whether candidates were evaluated under the same conditions are more important.

 If a broadcast with one minute of a candidate's opening statement missing was transmitted, the balance between candidates was already compromised at that moment.

If it was a mistake, prove it with records

Daejeon MBC's explanation must be supported by records, not just words, to be accepted as a mistake.

The release of the original video alone is insufficient.

The original footage only serves to confirm whether Kim Tae-heum's opening remarks actually took place.

The data that distinguishes intentionality from mistake includes the editing program's timeline, the timestamp of cut deletions, operator logs, final export records, revision creation records, transmission transfer records, and review records.

Unless this data is disclosed or confirmed through an investigative agency, the explanation of "a simple mistake" remains the broadcaster's statement rather than a verified fact.

The broadcaster stating it was a mistake on its own and digital records proving it was a mistake are entirely different matters.

This is also where the police investigation should focus.

Who made the edits? At what time was the segment deleted?

Were the subtitle error segment and Kim Tae-heum's opening remarks segment actually adjacent in the editing?

Did a complete version exist?

Through what process did the omitted version become the final broadcast version?

Who was the reviewer, and was there a review sheet? Did anyone aware of the omission realize it before the broadcast?

Answering these questions will reveal the boundary between intentionality and mistake.

However, even if the investigation finds no evidence of intentionality, responsibility does not disappear.

An incident where a specific candidate's key remarks are entirely omitted from election broadcasting is, in itself, a significant management failure.

The claim of unintentionality may affect the determination of criminal liability, but it does not absolve responsibility for undermining the fairness of election broadcasting.

Anger at Starbucks, Silence on Election Irregularities

Furthermore, the stance of President Lee Jae-myung and the ruling party cannot be overlooked.

Starbucks caused controversy by using the slogan 'Tank Day' and 'Tap on the Desk' for an event commemorating the May 18th Democratic Uprising.

President Lee Jae-myung strongly criticized this, and Shinsegae Group announced that it would dismiss the CEO of Starbucks Korea and related executives.

Then, is the incident where a specific candidate's entire opening statement was omitted from election broadcasting less serious?

While expressing anger over a single corporate slogan through cabinet meetings and social media, why is the same standard not applied to an incident that undermined the fairness of election broadcasting?

The election irregularity referred to here does not mean the manipulation of the entire election outcome.

It refers to the incident where a specific candidate's key remarks disappeared during the public procedure of an election broadcast debate, and that broadcast was delivered to voters.

Elections are fundamental to the order of democracy. Candidate debates are public procedures for voters to compare and judge candidates. If a specific candidate's opening remarks are omitted from this procedure, it is not a mere broadcasting accident but an incident of undermining election fairness.

If the President's anger is directed at historical wounds but stops short of the fairness of elections, which is a fundamental order of liberal democracy, then it is selective anger.

If the standard of fairness is determined not by the essence of the matter but by the advantage or disadvantage of one's camp, then the President's language becomes a tool for mobilizing a faction, not for national unity.

Selective Anger is Not the President's Language

Selective anger is not the President's language. The President is a representative of the entire nation, not a spokesperson for a particular faction's emotions.

Expressing anger over a single corporate slogan while remaining silent on an incident that undermined election broadcasting fairness is a matter of qualification, not a matter of standards.

A president who remains silent in the face of election fairness, a fundamental order of democracy, implicitly admits to being the president of a particular faction, not of the entire nation.

The top executive of Daejeon MBC must be held accountable for the collapse of the editing and review system. The responsible parties at the relevant Election Broadcasting Debate Committee and the National Election Commission are also not exempt from responsibility for the failure to manage the legally mandated debate.

The National Election Commission's responsibility does not disappear just because the broadcaster claims it was a mistake. If election broadcast debates are public procedures, the managing entities must also be held accountable when those procedures are compromised.

Responsibility Lies in Actions, Not Words

Whether it was intentional is for the police to determine.

However, even if it was not intentional, the responsible parties must step down.

Election fairness cannot be restored through post-hoc explanations. If a broadcast missing a specific candidate's opening remarks has already been delivered to voters, responsibility must be taken through actions, not words.

This incident is not simply a one-minute omission.

The one minute lost from the election broadcast was the candidate's right to speak, the voters' right to judge, and the minimum standard of election fairness.

If that one minute is gone, responsibility cannot also disappear. This is the minimum standard for maintaining the fairness of election broadcasting.