Asia News Weekly Network - S Korea’s defamation charge against Sankei reporter

to take up the investigation based on rumors alluded to in a Chosun Ilbo article printed in July.

No Korean reporters were arrested, no, the Korean Government instead is now going after Japanese citizens when it can. South Korea is again ruled by another Authoritarian minded President Park who is at war against a former ally.

President Park is desperate, she hasn't been able to get Japan to pay the compensation her father promised South Korea would pay under the 1965 treaty. So now, she is going after Japanese citizens and her government is now no different than ISIS!

Japan needs to warn any Japanese citizen living and working in South Korea that she is gunning for them!

Well we have got another couple of threads going on this. If the Google translations are right (and correctly interpreted): 1) the main reporter defined by "Korean news sources" that "no action was taken against", Choi Bo-sik, did not make the leap that the Sankei reporter did, instead reporting the two instances (Pres. Park's disappearance and the ex-staffer's divorce) as separate incidents not connected except as examples of how government secrecy is bad, and he later condemned the Sankei's report. 2) The Chosun Ilbo reporter condemned Kato's interpretation of his article. 3) IIRC The Sankei reporter's own colleague noted that Kato's trip-up was probably due to inexperience in Korea and he wouldn't have made such a mistake (due to Kato's 3 years in Korea and the 20 or so years for himself). 4) The ex-staffer was questioned by prosecutors back in August and said he was not with the President and that proecutors should "firmly punish" Kato. 5) Prosecutors also examined Pres. Park's and/or Blue House's itinerary logs. 6) Prosecutors said Kato's accusation was "groundless". There are a lot more details in Korean news so it is available to foreign news if they wanted it.

But mostly what you are seeing in the press is complaints that it is so unfair that Chosun Ilbo is not being prosecuted for the same accusations that Kato made. Repeated, repeated, repeated, with no balance provided.

As the article some of these points are based on indicates, there was another instance, way back in 1994, where a Fuji TV person was prosecuted and exiled for obtaining secrets from a Korean military person (a case for which the military person was sentenced to four years).

Press shouldn't just report anything it sees. Even if Kato cries "mistranslation" later, shouldn't he have been more careful with that big of an accusation, and not just run for the scoop?

And given Shinohara got off so lightly for espionage in 1994, and Kato probably won't get a big sentence either, seems a lot of Chicken Little's "sky is falling!" going around, until a lot more, and a lot more serious, cases are reported.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2994038

... In April 1994, Masatoshi Shinohara, Seoul bureau chief of Fuji Television, was deported from Korea for divulging military secrets from a Korean naval intelligence officer to the Japanese embassy.

He was previously sentenced in June 1993 by a Seoul court to a suspended prison term of two years for a violation of the Military Secrets Protection Act and banned from visiting Korea for five years. The naval intelligence officer was also sentenced to four years in prison and served time.

But mostly what you are seeing in the press is complaints that it is so unfair that Chosun Ilbo is not being prosecuted for the same accusations that Kato made. Repeated, repeated, repeated, with no balance provided.

Your examples are basically meaningles for WHO CARES if Chosun Ilbo reporter condemned Kato's article. What do you expect him to say? "Not fair!! I should get an indictment, too!!"

Bo-sik, did not make the leap that the Sankei reporter did, instead reporting the two instances (Pres. Park's disappearance and the ex-staffer's divorce) as separate incidents not connected except as examples of how government secrecy is bad

Do you think a normal reader with an aveage intelligence are that stupid to buy the above argument?

It's simple turbotsat. What page and what paragraph specifically in the below linked article is defamatory in which a said writer deserves an indictment?

A simple question that NOBODY has yet to answer including the Blue House and the Prosecution.

http://www.sankei.com/world/news/140803/wor1408030034-n1.html

nigelboy : ... basically meaningles for WHO CARES if Chosun Ilbo reporter condemned Kato's article ...

It indicates that Kato's translation and interpretation of Choi Boi-sik's article was incorrect, also Choi's rebuttal indicates he thinks Sankei was "malicious" not just incorrect (according to the Google translation of the rebuttal).

Since this is a discussion of (and international brouhaha over) a Korean story translated/interpreted to Japanese and back to Korean, I would take his opinion as a lot more meaningful than ours, or even than Kato's.

(Other bit re 'page and paragraph' answered in other thread with : http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/s-korea-urges-japan-to-calm-down-over-japanese-reporter#comment_1863783 .)

It indicates that Kato's translation and interpretation of Choi Boi-sik's article was incorrect, also Choi's rebuttal indicates he thinks Sankei was "malicious" not just incorrect (according to the Google translation of the rebuttal).

What part of Sankei phrases (which are in quotes via 「　」) are incorrectly translated? (Starts from page 4)

http://www.sankei.com/world/news/140803/wor1408030034-n1.html

You were gracious enough to indicate which constitutes 'defamatory'. But I'm afraid you are not even aware of how modern societies constitute 'defamation' for reporting a rumor when it states specifically that it's a "rumor" does not make a defamation. So thank you again.

Kato even brings up the Yoon-not-directly-linked-in-Chosun-Ilbo-article issue himself, in his article (third paragraph cited below). In his description of the Chosun Ilbo article, "While not to mention whether there why this column, rumors but suddenly, it was switched to "report real name" issued a specific name in the middle."

Sankei article p. 5 : "証券街の関係筋によれば、それは朴大統領と男性の関係に関するものだ。相手は、大統領の母体、セヌリ党の元側近で当時は妻帯者だったという。/ (trans.) According to the relationship of muscle securities Street, It's about the relationship of man and President Park. "

p. 6 : "コラムでも、ウワサが朴大統領をめぐる男女関係に関することだと、はっきりと書かれてはいない。コラムの記者はただ、「そんな感じで（低俗なものとして）扱われてきたウワサが、私的な席でも単なる雑談ではない“ニュース格”で扱われているのである」と明かしている。おそらく、“大統領とオトコ”の話は、韓国社会のすみの方で、あちらこちらで持ちきりとなっていただろう。/ (trans.) In column, when I thing about male-female relationships that rumors surrounding the President Park, although not written clearly. However, reporters column is revealed "rumors (as something vulgar) and has been treated in such a feeling is you're covered in just" price news "is not a chat in a private seat," he said. Perhaps, in a corner of Korean society, the story of "The Man and the President" is, would have become a buzzing here and there. "

p. 6 : "このコラム、ウワサがなんであるかに言及しないまま終わるのかと思わせたが途中で突然、具体的な氏名を出した“実名報道”に切り替わった。 / (trans.) It was thought to be an end? While not to mention whether there why this column, rumors but suddenly, it was switched to "report real name" issued a specific name in the middle. "

As far as Kato's translation, "vulgar" () appears in his article but not in Google's translation of Chosun Ilbo's. Also he has some discussion of "비선(秘線)", indicating he tried looking it up in Korean dictionaries, and guesses it to be "a 'person that is in contact with the secret' perhaps". Maybe that IS what comes out of a Korean-to-Japanese dictionary, but the only place I've seen that particular translation after Googling it a while is in his article.

p. 5 : "「秘線」とはわかりにくい表現だ。韓国語の辞書にも見つけにくい言葉だが、おそらくは「秘密に接触する人物」を示す。コラムを書いた記者は明らかに、具体的な人物を念頭に置いていることがうかがえる。コラムの続きはこうなっている。 / (trans.) It is a representation of confusing the "secret line". It is difficult to find words to dictionary of Korean, but show a "person that is in contact with the secret" perhaps. Reporter who wrote a column suggesting that obviously, you have in mind a person specific. Continuation of the column has become this."

Definition of "modern society"? Is a "modern society" one that conforms to nigelboy's interpretation of when defamation claims are allowed?

Note "the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources" below. Kato's multiple sources are a Korean article that doesn't make the connection Kato makes, and rumors from unnamed stockmarket bloggers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Other_defenses

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Kato even brings up the Yoon-not-directly-linked-in-Chosun-Ilbo-article issue himself, in his article (third paragraph cited below). In his description of the Chosun Ilbo article, "While not to mention whether there why this column, rumors but suddenly, it was switched to "report real name" issued a specific name in the middle."

??? The Chosun Ilbo column does in fact name the person out of the blue, sort of speak.

I realize the problem now for I'm guessing you were not aware that the July 18th column was also introduced via Japanese version on Chosun Ilbo on August 10th.

http://specificasia.blog.jp/archives/1009455626.html

So your translation of the original Korean to English and Sankei to English via google translation was unnecessary which I told Timtak in another thread but somehow you missed it.

Note "the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources" below. Kato's multiple sources are a Korean article that doesn't make the connection Kato makes, and rumors from unnamed stockmarket bloggers.

No it doesn't when it was merely reporting a rumor that was introduced in the Chosun Ilbo column. Did Chosun Ilbo "carefully check multiple sources" on the validity of the rumors they presented? Hell no. Simple answer. They didn't have to because they explicitly stated that it was a rumor as did Sankei.

nigelboy : ... ??? The Chosun Ilbo column does in fact name the person out of the blue, sort of speak. .... I realize the problem now for I'm guessing you were not aware that the July 18th column was also introduced via Japanese version on Chosun Ilbo on August 10th. .... No it doesn't when it was merely reporting a rumor that was introduced in the Chosun Ilbo column.

Exactly! : "??? The Chosun Ilbo column does in fact name the person out of the blue, sort of speak."

Look at the top of the Japanese link you posted. It includes discussion Choi Bosik's statement, translated to Japanese. Is Choi criticizing the Sankei reporter? (I tried including some quotes but I'm getting the "Your comment was not posted ... potentially offensive content." message from the JT submit bot.)

Suppose Kato was just translating Choi Bosik's column verbatim?

Would the prosecution then have reason to prosecute Kato but not Choi Bosik? Would Choi Bosik then have reason to criticize Sankei? No, in either case!

Kato is not going to walk into a defamation trial without competent legal representation. Competent in Korea. And if it were so easy to say "Kato just translated Chosun Ilbo article, why aren't you prosecuting Chosun Ilbo?" definitely that legal counsel will bring it up. Definitely the Korean prosecutors would expect Kato to have competent Korean legal counsel, and for them to bring it up. In that case, why bring the case at all?

But what if Choi Bosik put mention of the ex-staffer just as an example of secrecy, and only Kato made the connection, or Kato with unnamed bloggers? And included comments such as "v..." and "President's relationship with Y..." and "man with wom.. relationship"?

Here is another Korean article with more discussion of it. http://tinyurl.com/mret65j

And (related to the topic but not our discussion), here is a Japanese link from your link's sidebar, showing two persons at a Korean youth league demonstration, wearing Kato and Abe masks, and prostrating themselves in apology for the Sankei article: http://specificasia.blog.jp/archives/1011444712.html

Look at the top of the Japanese link you posted. It includes discussion Choi Bosik's statement, translated to Japanese. Is Choi criticizing the Sankei reporter? (I tried including some quotes but I'm getting the "Your comment was not posted ... potentially offensive content." message from the JT submit bot.)

Yeah. Choi's argument is weak. That's why it's presented at top, followed by Chosun Ilbo column, and finalized by Sankei. Notice the bold highlights. C'mon now.

Would the prosecution then have reason to prosecute Kato but not Choi Bosik? Would Choi Bosik then have reason to criticize Sankei? No, in either case!

Are you serious? Did you even listen to this podcast? The major criticism by the global community is singling out the Japanese media.

Kato is not going to walk into a defamation trial without competent legal representation. Competent in Korea. And if it were so easy to say "Kato just translated Chosun Ilbo article, why aren't you prosecuting Chosun Ilbo?" definitely that legal counsel will bring it up. Definitely the Korean prosecutors would expect Kato to have competent Korean legal counsel, and for them to bring it up. In that case, why bring the case at all?

Good question. Addressed already in another thread which you were involved in.

http://www.sankei.com/world/news/141009/wor1410090050-n1.html

Why indict? Addressed already, again. Pak was hoping for an apology and retraction in turn for dismissal. Sankei and Kato didn't bite. They got an exclusive coverage of the absurdity of the Korean legal system. They have not let up for their subsequent articles are much more critical of Pak's abuse of power.

And (related to the topic but not our discussion), here is a Japanese link from your link's sidebar, showing two persons at a Korean youth league demonstration, wearing Kato and Abe masks, and prostrating themselves in apology for the Sankei article: http://specificasia.blog.jp/archives/1011444712.html

Yes. Goes to prove the sickness in Korea as a result of anti Japan policy.

Choi's argument is weak.

Then why isn't he being prosecuted? Do you think lawyers with years of schooling and workplace experience don't know their business just because their action doesn't align with your opinion? Who is likely to be wrong in this case?

That's why it's presented at top, followed by Chosun Ilbo column, and finalized by Sankei. Notice the bold highlights.

It's presented at the top and described in the headline because it's the main topic of the article.

And appending Choi's and Kato's original articles with highlighting is both providing the full source with all context and highlighting the obvious differences between Choi's article and Kato's subsequent interpretation of it. Look at the highlighting. It supports the case that Kato's article is different from Choi's article, not just repeating Choi's article.

Are you serious? Did you even listen to this podcast? The major criticism by the global community is singling out the Japanese media.

I don't listen to podcasts and if "major criticism by the global community" is not addressing these issues on why Korea is prosecuting Kato and not Choi then there is no reason to assume the criticism is correct, just because it's repeated a lot.

The issues are not complicated and deserve to be addressed. Your link with highlighting shows the argument, and is available for journalists to read if they want. If the issue of Choi's non-prosecution vs Kato's prosecution is just reported and not addressed, what use is the "reporting"? Unless the authors are going to plead "brevity", or "need to generate more clicks by chopping up articles", they're just opinion pieces disguised as news by only reporting one side, the side that happens to favor the OMG-another-journalist-discriminated-in-this-world-OMG! meme.

Good question. Addressed already in another thread which you were involved in.

Addressed how? Didn't find it.

Why indict? Addressed already, again. Pak was hoping for an apology and retraction in turn for dismissal.

Based on what evidence? Isn't this supposition of Park's hopes?

Then why isn't he being prosecuted? Do you think lawyers with years of schooling and workplace experience don't know their business just because their action doesn't align with your opinion? Who is likely to be wrong in this case?

Which is the exact question almost everyone is asking with no credible answers yet to be offered.

It's presented at the top and described in the headline because it's the main topic of the article.

And is subsequently followed by Chosun Ilbo column and Sankei to point out the weak argument made by the author.

And appending Choi's and Kato's original articles with highlighting is both providing the full source with all context and highlighting the obvious differences between Choi's article and Kato's subsequent interpretation of it. Look at the highlighting. It supports the case that Kato's article is different from Choi's article, not just repeating Choi's article.

Obvious difference? No. It's highlighting the trend where such 'rumors' are now treated as legitimate news items which is emphasized by Chosun Ilbo. Sankei is merely paraphrasing the said column. The only difference I see is Sankei giving more details to the 'rumor' (again, it identifies them as a rumor) which is done so to clarify the readers.

I don't listen to podcasts and if "major criticism by the global community" is not addressing these issues on why Korea is prosecuting Kato and not Choi then there is no reason to assume the criticism is correct, just because it's repeated a lot.

That's your flaw since you falsely "assume" that the Korean prosecutors are fair and impartial despite the fact that you have yet to prove why Sankei is singled out in this indictment. So far, your argument is deduced to "it's different" or "Korean prosecutors must have some good reason".

Addressed how? Didn't find it.

Because you didn't read the Sankei article I linked where it details the exchanges between Kato and the prosecutors. If you're are going to debate, at least have the courtesy.

http://www.sankei.com/world/news/141009/wor1410090050-n1.html

Based on what evidence? Isn't this supposition of Park's hopes?

http://www.sankei.com/world/news/141011/wor1410110039-n1.html

今月２日に行われた３回目の事情聴取も、捜査が残っていたためではなく、謝罪またはそれに準ずる誠意を示すことができるかを打診するためだった。加藤前支局長や産経新聞社が「謝罪」や「遺憾表明」を行う場合、起訴猶予処分にすることを検討したという。

The reason behind the third interrogation was conducted on the 2nd was not because there were pending investigation, the prosecution was hoping for Kato and Sankei to show remorse and apology where they were willing to concede with suspended indictment.

しかし加藤前支局長側の立場は変わらず、検察は結局、かたくなな大統領府の「方針」を前にして、「内部方針とは違う起訴という結論を出した」という。

However, since Kato did not change his stance, the prosecution had no choice to adhere to the President's office "directions" which is "against the direction of the prosecution"

nigelboy Oct. 17, 2014 - 02:30AM JST That's your flaw since you falsely "assume" that the Korean prosecutors are fair and impartial despite the fact that you have yet to prove why Sankei is singled out in this indictment. So far, your argument is deduced to "it's different" or "Korean prosecutors must have some good reason".

Justice system in Korea is not different from your country Japan. It's practically identical. During the investigation process, the focus is to “find the truth,” and the “truth” is often “found” by getting a confession. The suspects and defendants are treated not as a party, but as an object of investigation. It is also often criticized that the judges tend to be closer to the prosecutors. Every element of the crime or the personal history of the defendant is thoroughly investigated and proven. Just like in Korea, the conviction rate in a Japanese criminal trial is over 99%. When it comes to postconviction proceedings, the prosecution’s focus is on “winning”, that is, to protect the conviction.

nigelboy : Which is the exact question almost everyone is asking with no credible answers yet to be offered.

What is not credible about my answers?

And is subsequently followed by Chosun Ilbo column and Sankei to point out the weak argument made by the author.

"lede" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_paragraph : "... the opening paragraph of an article, essay, news story or book chapter. ... precedes the main body of the article, and it gives the reader the main idea of the story. ....

The highlighted passages support my point, not any 'weakness' of Choi's argument. Kato is connecting Yoon with Pres. Park and Choi is not, except that they both appear in Choi's article.

Your interpretation "point out the weak argument" based on positioning of Kato's article at third place is pretty weak.

"The reason behind the third interrogation "

Your evidence is Sankei's own report, made in support of its own exoneration?

What is not credible about my answers?

Your argument that Chosun Ilbo's column is 'different'. So what?

The highlighted passages support my point, not any 'weakness' of Choi's argument. Kato is connecting Yoon with Pres. Park and Choi is not, except that they both appear in Choi's article.

So does Ilbo. That's why his name appears on Ilbo. He even described the turn of the events as 'dramatic'

Your evidence is Sankei's own report, made in support of its own exoneration?

It cites Hankyoreh article on the 11th.

not credible ... your argument that Chosun Ilbo's column is 'different' ...

In what way? What do you dispute about it? Especially after Choi Bosik is also arguing it's different?

except that they both appear in Choi's article. So does Ilbo. That's why his name appears on Ilbo. He even described the turn of the events as 'dramatic'

If I write an article that mentions apples early on and oranges later on but doesn't connect the two, that doesn't make my article about the relationships between apples and oranges. If you later pick up my article in your own, and discuss how I may have meant to connect apples and oranges so they must be connected, it still doesn't make my article have any reference to the connection between apples and oranges.

It cites Hankyoreh article on the 11th.

What does Hankyoreh cite?

In what way? What do you dispute about it? Especially after Choi Bosik is also arguing it's different?

In an 'insignificant' way. So getting back, what phrases did Sankei use in their column that warrants 'defamation' charges?

If I write an article that mentions apples early on and oranges later on but doesn't connect the two, that doesn't make my article about the relationships between apples and oranges. If you later pick up my article in your own, and discuss how I may have meant to connect apples and oranges so they must be connected, it still doesn't make my article have any reference to the connection between apples and oranges.

Neither does Sankei then. It's your choice turbotsat.

What does Hankyoreh cite?

It begins with

ハンギョレは１１日、検察は“条件付き”起訴猶予方針だったと報じた。

　検察関係者の話をもとにした同紙報道によると

Hankyoreh on the 11th reported that the prosecution's direction was to issue a conditional suspended indictment. The paper also reported based on those involved in the prosecution...

The following I already posted.

"今月２日に行われた３回目の事情聴取も、捜査が残っていたためではなく、謝罪またはそれに準ずる誠意を示すことができるかを打診するためだった。加藤前支局長や産経新聞社が「謝罪」や「遺憾表明」を行う場合、起訴猶予処分にすることを検討したという。

The reason behind the third interrogation was conducted on the 2nd was not because there were pending investigation, the prosecution was hoping for Kato and Sankei to show remorse and apology where they were willing to concede with suspended indictment.

しかし加藤前支局長側の立場は変わらず、検察は結局、かたくなな大統領府の「方針」を前にして、「内部方針とは違う起訴という結論を出した」という。

However, since Kato did not change his stance, the prosecution had no choice to adhere to the President's office "directions" which is "against the direction of the prosecution"

If you are going to debate, at least have the courtesy to read the link I provided.

You guys seem to be forgetting that the online article written by Kato was in JAPANESE.

What I am interested in, is the question of defamation in such a case. It became known to the general Korean public only after some guy decided to translate it to Korean.

Now, how accurate was the Korean translation? Should defamation be based on an unofficial and non-approved translation? What if the translation was biased? Is the defamation against the original document (which was not meant for the Korean public) or the translated one?

If a foreign individual living in Korea posted on his blog in his foreign language that stated that he thought that the President was probably having an affair during the "magical" 7 hours, is that defamation?

turbostat, some of your translations above at 8:14 am from J to E are seriously misleading. (As I mentioned over in the other article.)

The Google translations are simply not good enough to have a serious argument with, although you do start earlier on with that caveat.

Onsen

More interestingly what would have happened if Kato had written the aritcle in Japan ?

SamuraiBlue,

I would suppose that Korea would mark him as a persona non grata and refuse entry into Korea. Which if you turn it around, should simply be that since he is in Korea now, he should be told to leave the country immediately as he is not welcome. Much more appropriate than indicting the guy.

The editors at the Korea Herald seem to have fairly understood all sides to this discussion:

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20141010000639

@nandakandamanda

The translations are good enough to say that Kato links the President with the staffer and Choi does not, except by including them in the same article, and that Kato gets a bit stronger with his language. Even without Choi's newer statement condemning Kato.

Because the question is, why is Kato indicted and not Choi?

Without this difference, the only answer available is that Kato is of the hated Japanese people, or the hated Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun, and Choi is not. Kato and Sankei are likely to obtain Korean legal representation so it would be stupid of prosecutors to indict Kato only for this difference. Choi's original column was certainly available to the prosecutors for examination.

Most news reports such as the Korea Herald's are not looking into this difference and they should be, as it is a basic question central to the storyline. It is easier to say "Korea hates Japanese and especially that annoying Sankei Shimbun" as it fits many people's stereotypes, no need to question.

The charges are bogus since the reporter was reporting rumors already circulating. But it was an ill advised article that has already cost him dearly. It certainly does make Ms. Park's govt. look petty and anti Japanese. I thought well of her father and almost met him at a national expressway rest area while in Korea with the US Army. I doubt he would have been so petty.