[Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media] Conservative media uses victims to backtrack on the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue

Original Korean version published by Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media on May 14, 2020: https://www.ccdm.or.kr/xe/watch/295187

On May 7, Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivor Lee Yong-soo held a press conference and strongly criticized Yoon Mee-hyang, a Democratic Party-elect (former chair of the board at The Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan and representative of The Korean Council of the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan). The media mainly reported two points from Lee Yong-soo’s press conference: 1) an allegation that “the ‘comfort women’ organization donation fund operations lacked transparency and that the funds were not being used for victim-survivors” and 2) an allegation that “at the time of the 2015 Korea-Japan ‘comfort women’ agreement, Yoon Mee-hyang was aware of the fact that Japan had promised 1 billion yen.”

After Lee Yong-soo halmoni’s press conference, media coverage primarily by Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily reported that the then-Democratic Party elect Yoon Mee-hyang had been ignoring the victim-survivors’opinions in her activism. The coverage also developed the narrative that the donation funds were used in unethical ways. Such coverage reflects attempts to drag the 30-year relationship of Yoon and Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivors into extreme conflict, sway the foundation of the movement for Japanese military sexual slavery issue, politicize the issue, and justify the 2015 Korea-Japan “comfort women” agreement. The historical responsibility of Japan, which is still yet to apologize and recognize legal responsibilities, have suddenly shifted to a narrative of “scandals of Yoon Mee-hyang and ‘comfort women’ organization.” As Lee Yong-soo had also emphasized a sincere resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue, the latest coverage has significant consequences for its distortions.

Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily use Lee Yong-soo halmoni to inflate allegations

△ Detailed count of major newspaper coverage on Lee Yong-soo’s press conference (May 8~12, 2020)
※ Reports which primarily raised allegations, maintained a mechanical neutral stance, clarified allegations, or analyzed background of conflict while also mentioning Lee Yong-soo’s press conference or perspective of the Korean Council (or Yoon Mee-hyang) were classified under respective primary categories
※ Reports on the politicization of the issue included one article (Chosun Ilbo) that reiterated the claims of Lee Young-hoon, author of Anti-Japanese Tribalism, and critiques of the politicization of the issue included reports that challenge Lee Young-hoon’s claims (Hankook Ilbo).

The Democratic Party-elect Yoon Mee-hyang is a former activist who dedicated to the Japanese military sexual slavery issue for 30 years, and she had fought with Lee Yong-soo halmoni throughout the past 30 years. History would have regressed if Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivors and Yoon had not endured the difficult process of raising international awareness of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue, which the world and even the Korean government had been indifferent to, and seeking recognition of the issue as historical truth. Furthermore, Lee Yong-soo halmoni emphasized the injustices of the 2015 “comfort women” agreement and the resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue in this press conference. If a conflict had surfaced between the two, the media could have researched the background and objectively investigated the allegations raised by Lee Yong-soo. However, the media has been indulged in political purposes. They expanded allegations beyond the issues raised by Lee Yong-soo and attacked the Japanese military “comfort women” movement. This fact is also seen in the volume of coverage.

In the four days from May 8 to 12 excluding Sunday, Chosun Ilbo reported 22 cases and JoongAng Daily reported 12 cases. This amount is two to three times more than the number of reports from other newspapers. 19 out of 22 Chosun Ilbo cases and 10 out of 12 JoongAng Daily reports raised or inflated allegations. In the case of the Dong-A Ilbo, the total number of reports is only 7, but most of them, 6, are reports that raised or inflated allegations. On the other hand, Kyunghyang Shinmun and Hankook Ilbo accurately balanced the number of reports on allegations and clarifications of such allegations. The Hankyoreh devoted all seven related reports to counterarguments and clarifications of allegations.

Notably, Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily focus on different aspects even though they both raise and inflate allegations. Chosun Ilbo spent 8 articles on accentuating the conflict and politicizing the issue. JoongAng Daily focused 6 allegations on Yoon’s prior knowledge of the 2015 agreement, while none reflected the conflict and politicization of the issue. Chosun Ilbo made their political purposes more explicit. 

1. Reports that fuel conflict and politicize the issue

The basic intention of the “conflict/politicization” report is to “drive a wedge.”

Chosun Ilbo’s reports on conflict and politicization demonstrate its intention to drive a wedge. One example is Chosun Ilbo’s <Leader of “comfort women” organization Yoon Mee-hyang attacks 30-year companion Lee Yong-soo>(5/9) which criticized Yoon for “attacking halmoni” when she said Lee Yong-soo and herself had different memories of when 2015 agreement was announced. Some coverage even demonstrated hatred towards all activists in the movement for Japanese military sexual slavery issue including Yoon, and even insult towards Lee Yong-soo halmoni.

Chosun Ilbo’s <Editorial/”I have been taken advantage of” “Comfort women” organization should reveal its problems> (5/9) cherry-picked a quote from Yoon’s Facebook post on May 8 “(30 years ago) in her first call, Lee said she was not [a Japanese military “comfort woman”] but her friend was…” to claim that “(Yoon) acted as if Lee might not be a true Japanese military “comfort woman.” This is false. Yoon’s post did the opposite – it intended to say that Lee Yong-soo is a Japanese military “comfort woman” victim and as such, she will continue to work with victim-survivors despite the incident. The sentence immediately before the one about Lee Yong-soo’s first call that Chosun Ilbo had quoted was “Some people tell me to respond. However, I can only passively put my mind and thought into writing because the person I need to respond to is a victim-survivor.” The sentence immediately after was “praises by victim-survivor (Lee Yong-soo) made my activism worthwhile, and her laughter gave me the energy to devote myself into the movement.” In clarifying issues raised by Lee, Yoon called [Lee Yong-soo] halmoni “victim” and expressed regret and respect.

“What if halmoni is not a Japanese military ‘comfort woman’?” Is this the true intention of Chosun Ilbo?

Chosun Ilbo, which interpreted Yoon’s posts on its own accord, connected the post to the Democratic Citizen Party’s claim that “halmoni’s memory had been distorted” and the Korean Council’s clarification that “Victim-survivors including Lee received 100 million won” to criticize that “Lee halmoni is being portrayed as having dementia” and “people who received citizens’ funding, consolation money from Japan, and even became a National Assembly member based on the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue is now treating Lee halmoni as if she is not true [‘comfort woman’] but just an elderly with dementia.” Chosun Ilbo even went onto make ridiculous remarks such as “if Lee halmoni was not Japanese military ‘comfort woman,’ they had known this all along and still manipulated her. This is unacceptable.” This demonstrates that Chosun Ilbo’s intentions do not lie in the protection of Japanese military “comfort women” such as Lee Yong-soo.

No one has portrayed Lee Yong-soo halmoni as an “elderly person with dementia” or “fake victim.” Chosun Ilbo is the one constructing this portrayal. The Korean Council’s clarification that “Lee also received 100 million won,” which Chosun Ilbo had inserted into their narrative, was actually in response to Chosun Ilbo’s earlier article, which claimed that the Korean Council did not use donations to support victim-survivors. The Korean Council clarified that Lee Yong-soo halmoni was a victim-survivor who rejected Japan’s consolation funds and as such, received money raised through citizens’ fundraising. Chosun Ilbo, which went so far as to make claims of “fake victim” out of Yoon’s post that had respected Lee as a victim and stated clarifications, wrote an “unacceptable” editorial.

Even if Lee Yong-soo halmoni had some misunderstandings about the management of donations or the situation in 2015, the Democratic Party and Yoon who mentioned Lee’s “memory,” should have been more careful. This is because “victim-survivors’ memory” had become the backbone of the movement for the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. Chosun Ilbo went beyond and used Lee Yong-soo to attack Yoon and the ruling party. In doing so, Chosun Ilbo insulted Lee Yong-soo, whom it had tried to use. Chosun Ilbo seems to not have been able to hide their innermost intentions.

Chosun Ilbo, which tried to describe Yoon and “comfort women” organizations as slandering Lee Yong-soo halmoni, said at the end of the editorial that “the ruling party and government have the responsibility to clarify allegations,” and that “the current administration had stigmatized and discarded the ‘comfort women’ agreement reached by the former administration as a number one diplomatic malpractice,” turning to a pinnacle of “politicized coverage.” The editorial reasoned that the victim expressed anger against the current administration, which had stigmatized the Park administration’s agreement as malpractice based on victims’ opinions. Was the purpose of mentioning “the possibility that Lee Yong-soo is a fake victim” ultimately to justify the Park Geun-hye administration’s “comfort women” agreement?

Chosun Ilbo’s argument is close to personal attacks… Why are they putting forth arguments that are similar to those of anti-Korean figures?

Chosun Ilbo’s editorial contains endless problems. It defamed Yoon and others through ambiguous sentences that portrayed them as “people who received citizens’ funding, consolation money from Japan, and even became a National Assembly member based on the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue.” Only former women’s rights activist and National Assembly member Lee Mi-kyung and National Assembly member-elect Yoon Mee-hyang had been elected to the National Assembly among activists who worked on the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. Who among these two received citizens’ fundraising or consolation funds from Japan? The consolation funds were deposited to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation in 2016, and even the remaining funding of 5.78 billion won is put on hold to be returned to Japan. The national citizens’ fundraising has been carried out by organizations such as the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan in the past or the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan. Ambiguous sentences that create fake news should not be used to defame those who have stood at the forefront of resolving the Japanese military sexual slavery issue.

Chosun Ilbo’s claims that “civic groups have focused more on maintaining problems and personal gains rather than resolving issues under the excuse of nation-wide aspirations” and that “they have ignored the inevitable international reality and made it more difficult to resolve the issue by taking advantage of anti-Japanese sentiments for political purposes” are also unfounded. Japan is the one making resolution ever more difficult by denying its war crimes and legal responsibilities, attempting to erase the history of Japanese military sexual slavery, and covering up the apologies made in previous administrations with various defamatory remarks and distorted textbooks. Prime Minister Abe said he has “not a single glance of intentions” of writing letters of apology to victim-survivors in October 2016 after the 2015 “comfort women” agreement. If some media wanted to characterize people who hold weekly Wednesday Demonstrations, safeguard the Statue of Peace, and support elderly victim-survivors under such circumstances as “focusing on personal gains” and “taking advantage of anti-Japanese sentiments,” they should have provided at least one example or evidence.

Muto Masatoshi, a former Japanese ambassador and a notable anti-Korean figure, wrote on May 12 that the Korean Council “is an organization that engages in anti-Japanese activities and connects with North Korea, using the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue as an excuse to aggravate Japan-Korea relations.” Chosun Ilbo should reflect on why the position of an anti-Korean figure who does not even acknowledge war crimes is similar to that of its editorial.

The purpose of Lee Yong-soo’s press conference was “fundamental resolution of the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue”

None of the other newspapers explicitly expressed intentions to escalate conflicts and politicize the issue as Chosun Ilbo had done. Although some had criticized Yoon’s stance for mentioning halmoni’s “memory” while shedding light on other aspects, they did not go as far to construct the narrative of “Yoon and the ruling party is attacking Lee Yong-soo halmoni and treating her as an elderly with dementia.”

What is regrettable about the Chosun Ilbo report is that it has a political goal, as confirmed earlier. This goal includes intentions to justify the 2015 “comfort women” agreement, which was hastily reached without the voices of the victim-survivors and did not entail a strong apology from the Japanese government. This also stands in opposition to Lee Yong-soo halmoni’s press conference, which the Chosun Ilbo’s reports are based on.

Lee Yong-soo halmoni raised allegations on Yoon’s prior knowledge of the 2015 agreement, but also said, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also guilty. They should have let victims know. If I had known, I would have turned the offer down, but I didn’t know about it because [the Ministry] only talked to the representative.” She also said “these people took advantage of halmonis who were not well. I didn’t know [the agreement] was being reached. If I had, I would have turned it down. They lied to me.” She expressed continuous anger to Japan, which provided 1 billion yen funding, and the Park Geun-hye administration. 

In criticizing Yoon’s election to the National Assembly, she said “I don’t know Yoon Mee-hyang as a member of the National Assembly. I only know Yoon Mee-hyang of the Korean Council.” “[She] should have left after resolving the issue. She left for her personal benefits, not having resolved the ‘comfort women’ issue, and just went elsewhere.” This remark is not denying Yoon’s qualifications or previous work as an activist for the Japanese military sexual slavery issue, but is closer to a request for her to keep the promises made in the movement for resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. Lee, who criticized Yoon, had these following goals: 1) irreversible and sincere apology from the Japanese government, 2) establishment of history education to teach war crimes that had been recognized internationally, 3) legal and humanitarian support for victims. Her goal is for the Japanese government to carry out its responsibilities, or ultimate resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue.

2. “Reports alleging prior knowledge of the 2015 agreement” that shifted “Japan’s responsibility” to “Yoon Mee-hyang’s responsibility”

Reports that changed the 2015 agreement from “hasty agreement that avoided Japan’s responsibility” to “Yoon Mee-hyang’s neglect of victims”

Although not as explicit as Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily also demonstrated a political attitude in focusing on allegations of Yoon’s prior knowledge of the 2015 “comfort women” agreement. Chosun Ilbo’s intentions to justify the 2015 agreement is even more evident in these “reports alleging [Yoon’s] prior knowledge” of the agreement.

JoongAng Daily shed light on this allegation every day from the May 8, when the allegations were first broadcasted, to the May 12, totaling 6 articles. The allegations asserted that Yoon had hidden the contents of the agreement from victims even though she had prior knowledge of the 2015 agreement, and ignored victims who wanted to receive money after the agreement was announced. This frame is easily derived from titles of the articles.

△ Titles of JoongAng Daily’s articles alleging prior knowledge of the 2015 “comfort women” agreement (5/8~12)

While JoongAng Daily wrote many articles, <While decrying victim-centered approach, Yoon actually had not respected the wishes of victims> (5/12) reflects all of JoongAng Daily’s intentions. JoongAng Daily noted that Yoon’s stance has changed from [being aware of the 2015 agreement] “on the day the agreement was announced (Yoon on May 7) → on the day before the agreement was announced (Yoon on May 8)” and “according to information released by the Korean Council, Lee Sang-deok, director of Northeast Asia division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, unilaterally notified contents of the agreement on December 27 under the premise of confidentiality, including Japan’s  ▶ acknowledgment of responsibility ▶ apology and reflection ▶ funding from government.” JoongAng Daily also noted that she “had not expressed opposition” and “did not share the information delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to victims in advance.”

JoongAng Daily also asserted that “halmoni A had released a letter to the JoongAng Daily in which Yoon had persuaded her not to accept [the consolation fund].” Based on its article on May 11, JoongAng Daily also mentioned that “whether Yoon had been involved in victims receiving the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation’s consolation funds provided by Japan’s 1 billion yen funding is also an issue to be examined.” 

The titles of articles released by JoongAng Daily on May 11 were <Exclusive / “Comfort women” victim halmonis, stigmatized as traitors if received money from Japan> and <Exclusive / “Yoon Mee-hyang stopped me from receiving 100 million won funding for ‘comfort women’”>. These articles reveal the narrative that “Yoon, who have been representing victims, had in fact ignored the wishes of victims.” In JoongAng Daily’s <“Yoon Mee-hyang stopped me from receiving 100 million won funding for ‘comfort women’”>, the newspaper did not even hide their intentions, arguing that “Yoon, who had criticized the agreement for its lack of victim-centered approach, had ignored victim’s voluntary will and choice.”

JoongAng Daily strengthened the “procedural legitimacy of the 2015 agreement” based on “anonymity”

In focusing on the coverage of “allegations of [Yoon’s] prior knowledge” and damaging Yoon’s image as an “activist dedicated to the resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue,” JoongAng Daily intended to justify the 2015 “comfort women” agreement reached by the Park Geun-hye administration. It spent most of the 6 articles in “procedural legitimacy,” noting that “Park Geun-hye government had faithfully explained to Yoon and other organizations before announcing the 2015 agreement.” Based on this premise, the coverage is advancing a narrative of “Yoon had neglected victims and ignored victim’s wishes even though she had been notified.” 

If such incidents did take place in 2015, the silence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs despite their knowledge, and the lack of media coverage on these issues remain questionable. However, JoongAng Daily’s logic itself is flawed on multiple levels. First, they are relying on anonymous reports for their premise of “Park Geun-hye administration provided faithful explanations,” and contents of the coverage include false information.

JoongAng Daily’s <“I learned about the agreement on the day” → “I learned about it the day before” Yoon Mee-hyang changed her words>(5/8), which was written right after the incident, mentioned that “the results of JoongAng Daily’s investigations of relevant people in the Blue House, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and civilians who had participated in the agreement negotiations” show that “the government had delivered main points such as ‘involvement of Japanese military,’ ‘responsibility of the government,’ ‘apology of Prime Minister Abe,’ and ‘1 billion yen funding’ to the Korean Council. Closer to the agreement on December 28, 2015, Lee Sang-deok, director of the Northeast Asia division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs visited Yoon Mee-hyang in person to explain, and delivered the news via a phone call on the day before the agreement was announced.” Furthermore, the article cited an “anonymous well-acquainted source,” who said, “Director Lee (Sang-deok) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned Yoon Mee-hyang as ‘his counterpart’ several times, so I thought Yoon must have known if I was informed of the news.” In arguing that “the public opinion worsened after the 2015 agreement was announced and Yoon started sharply criticizing the government, which left the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘perplexed,’” the article vaguely notes a “reaction” without even quoting anonymous sources.

This is not an indication of allegations, but a typical “anonymous reporting technique” used to inflate an issue or attack someone. The basic premise of “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Park Geun-hye administration provided faithful explanations but was perplexed as Yoon sharply criticized the government afterward” used by the JoongAng Daily was built on “anonymity,” or poor reasoning.

Typical techniques of distortion: making claims that are different from the facts or “cherry-picking” facts

The JoongAng Ilbo did not stop at using anonymous sources. <Yoon Mee-hyang’s clarifications “I had been told the contents that were released to reporters the day before the agreement was announced” were false>(5/11)>  quoted from a non-anonymous source, Future Korea Party elect Cho Tae-yong who said, “I was deputy director of Blue House NSC (National Security Council) at the time and heard the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mention that ‘Yoon Mee-hyang was notified of the agreement in advance.’” This quote is a second-hand account of Cho hearing what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned, and is thus less credible.

There is one part that JoongAng Daily wrote based on “data” other than quotes from sources. In <“I learned about the agreement on the day” → “I learned about it the day before” Yoon Mee-hyang changed her words>(5/8), JoongAng Daily quoted “2017 report issued by Task Force on the Review of the Korea-Japan Agreement on the Issue of ‘Comfort Women’ Victims” to convey that “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacted victims and relevant groups more than 15 times throughout 2015 since it decided to start negotiations” and “explanations were made to the victims throughout the negotiation process.”

However, JoongAng Daily highlighted parts of the report that were necessary for their narrative. In <Park Geun-hye administration, which did not notify victims of the key contents during the Korea-Japan “comfort women” agreement>(5/12), the Hankyoreh quoted the report as saying “[the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] did not inform them that there were measures to be undertaken by the Korean side, including the confirmation of the final and irreversible resolution and refraining from reprobation and criticism in international forums” and “failed to seek the victims’ views on the amount of reparation.” This corresponds to the claims of Yoon and the Korean Council that the information provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on December 27 was at the level that was already made available via the press. Such fact, however, was missing in JoongAng Daily’s reports.

In addition, another report by the JoongAng Daily differs from the truth. Its <“Comfort women” victim halmonis, stigmatized as traitors if received money from Japan>(5/11) claimed that “Lee Yong-soo halmoni argued that Yoon had prior knowledge of the 1 billion yen. Yoon said she was ‘unilaterally notified’ but acknowledged that she was aware of the 1 billion yen beforehand.” Yoon pointed out in her interview with CBS Radio on May 11  that “it was already on the news. [The information that the agreement will include] acknowledgment of state responsibility, apology by the Prime Minister, and funding from the government was already released by the media and everyone knew.” These facts were already publicly available through media coverage and were not newly learned through notification of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Frames made by “cherry-picking” clarifications

Even if we do not examine the flaws of specific reports in detail, records on the 2015 agreement revealed via the Korean Council’s press release on May 11 demonstrate how meaningless JoongAng Daily’s “prior knowledge and neglect of victims” frame is. According to the situation as detailed in the Korean Council’s press release, Yoon and most citizens predicted that the agreement would include “acknowledgment of responsibility, apology, and funding from Japanese government” as these had already been shared by the Korean and Japanese media. If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had notified this one day before the formal announcement, Yoon or the Korean Council would not have needed to take action a day before the formal announcement. It is also meaningless to ask whether the victims were given “a chance to express their opposition” on contents that were already released to the media a few days ago in the short time frame between the notification on December 27 and the announcement the day after. JoongAng Daily’s allegations remain questionable. It used the Korean Council’s press release for their article’s framing, cherry-picking parts that were useful to them.

JoongAng Daily’s <While decrying victim-centered approach, Yoon had actually not respected the wishes of victims>(5/12) said “according to data released by the Korean Council on May 11,” “(Yoon and the Korean Council) heard prior explanations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and did not express opposition,” and “whether victim-survivors were informed of the prior explanations and provided the opportunity to raise their concerns is a key point of this issue.”

The Korean Council’s press release on May 11 states the facts clearly. The Korean Council noticed that Japanese media had “reported that the agreement will include △ acknowledgment of responsibility △ apologies and repent △ funding from Japanese government” since December 24, 2015, four days before the agreement. The Korean Council reached out to Lee Sang-deok, then Director of Northeast Asia Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but he responded, “the media coverage is wrong, you should trust the government.” On December 26, Korean and Japanese media started reporting that “Korean and Japanese governments will agree on apologies by Prime Minister Abe, the establishment of a foundation supporting ‘comfort women,’ and 1 billion yen funding from the Japanese government” and the late Kim Bok-dong halmoni and Lee Yong-soo halmoni expressed their opposition. On December 27, Lee Sang-deok had “unilaterally notified △apologies and repent △ funding from Japanese government under premises of confidentiality.” The Korean Council’s legal expert committee “postponed decisions until the agreement was formally announced.” On the day the agreement was announced, December 28, “△final and irreversible resolution △ refraining from mutual criticism △efforts to deal with the Statue of Peace were added, upon which the Korean Council decided to oppose the Korea-Japan Japanese military ‘comfort women’ agreement and held a press conference.” Among these clarifications, JoongAng Daily cherry-picked notification from Lee Sang-deok, director at Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Korean Council’s decision to postpone its official press conference to December 28, to conclude on the possibility of “Yoon had not told halmonis even after listening to explanations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and deprived them of the opportunity to oppose.”

Is JoongAng Daily saying that we should receive Japan’s money that evades legal responsibility?

JoongAng Daily takes a step further from “Yoon’s prior knowledge of the agreement” to “neglect of victims’ intentions.” This narrative concludes that “Yoon had ignored victims’ wishes to receive consolation funds from Japan and coaxed them.” The essence of the issue was the attempts of Japan and the 2015 agreement to erase the Japanese military “comfort women” issue through consolation money without Japan’s apologies and legal responsibility, but this is being changed with the frame of “Yoon Mee-hyang who ignored ‘comfort women’ victims.” In shifting the frame, JoongAng Daily used “money” and the stances of some victim-survivors.

In the case of JoongAng Daily’s <“Comfort women” victim halmonis stigmatized as traitors if received money from Japan>(5/11), the title already portrayed Yoon, the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, and the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan as “stigmatizing” victim-survivors if they received money from Japan.

Based on halmoni A’s “hand-written letter” released by JoongAng Daily, this article paints the narrative as if Yoon and “comfort women” organizations had forced victim-survivors to not receive money from Japan, even recalling the “Asian Women’s Fund controversies of the 1990s.”  JoongAng Daily criticized Yoon, arguing that “opposing [the agreement] herself and coaxing victim-survivors to not receive the money against their wishes are different matters.” It used the expression that the Korean Council had “coaxed” them not to receive money, which is repeated throughout its relevant articles. Halmoni A wrote, “when (the government) received 1 billion yen from Japan and gave 100 million won to each victim-survivor, Yoon phoned and said ‘halmoni, don’t receive money from Japan. The Korean Council will give the money when we fundraise enough,’ telling me to not receive the money,” but said “I wanted to receive the money because I was resentful about what I had suffered.”

Of course, as each individual victim-survivor is situated in different circumstances and has different wishes, some may receive consolation funding from Japan, and others like Lee Yong-soo may refuse to do so. This is natural. As halmoni A wrote in her letter, if Yoon said “halmoni, don’t receive money from Japan. The Korean Council will give the money when we fundraise enough,” that is also not surprising. Regardless of whether they received money, most victim-survivors opposed Japan’s consolation funds without apologies. JoongAng Daily noted in <While decrying victim-centered approach, Yoon had actually not respected the wishes of victims>(5/12) that “some halmonis came quietly to receive the funding, even if they expressed opposition to the agreement publicly” and among the 47 victim-survivors who were alive at the time the agreement was announced, “35 had received the consolation fund.”

Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily are the ones “stigmatizing”

It is natural for an organization representing the victim-survivors and Yoon to “persuade” victims not to receive money from Japan based on the victim-survivors’ fundamental opposition to the agreement. JoongAng Daily framed this natural “persuasive process” in exaggerated titles such as “coaxing,” “stigmatization as traitors,” “Yoon stopped [victim-survivors] from receiving [money],” “Yoon did not respect the victims.” JoongAng Daily is “stigmatizing” Yoon and the movement for the Japanese military sexual slavery issue.

The grounds used by JoongAng Daily to describe Yoon as if she had forced victims are regrettable. <“Comfort women” victim halmonis stigmatized as traitors if received money from Japan>(5/11) recalled past incidents, stating that “many think of the Asian Women’s Fund in the 1990s when they see the testimony of halmoni A.” They argued “Japan launched the Asian Women’s Fund in 1995 to provide compensation of 5 million yen to each Korean victim-survivor. However, the Korean Council opposed the Fund as it was not premised on the Japanese government’s legal responsibility. 7 victim-survivors received the Asian Women’s Fund at the time, and halmoni A was one of them. They were known to have suffered greatly as they were stigmatized as traitors.”

The article alludes to the Asian Women’s Fund of more than 30 years ago, which was not even brought up in the letter by halmoni A. In this article titled “exclusive,” JoongAng Daily only mentioned vague assumptions such as “there are people who think of the incident,” “they were known to have been stigmatized as traitors.” The examples that JoongAng Daily gave as people who recalled the Asian Women’s Fund and perceived that The Korean Council and other organizations had “stigmatized as traitors” were “Deputy Director Cho Se-young of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and “Former Japanese ambassador to Korea Muto Masatoshi.” Deputy Director Cho had written in his book that “conflicts arose between victims who received the fund and relevant organizations such as the Korean Council,” and Muto Masatoshi, former Japanese ambassador, said “The Korean Council did not give government subsidies to the 7 victim-survivors who received the Asian Women’s Fund and criticized them maliciously. It is doubtful as to whether this is behavior that those who want to really help the victim-survivors should demonstrate.” However, none of these words actually say that Yoon or “comfort women” groups stigmatized victim-survivors who received the Asian Women’s Fund as traitors. Only “conflict between organizations such as the Korean Council and victim-survivors who receive subsidies” is made visible.

Why are Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily using the arguments of Anti-Korean figures as reasoning?

The Asian Women’s Fund, which JoongAng Daily had summoned, was a project that attempted to provide consolation funds to Japanese military sexual slavery victims in Asia through civilian donations. As this fund had evaded the Japanese government’s legal responsibilities, the Korean Council opposed it and fundraised nation-wide to provide alternative funding to victim-survivors. The Kim Dae-jung administration opposed the fund and provided direct subsidies to victim-survivors, thus putting itself at a moral advantage. In doing so, it chose the path of demanding sincere apologies and reparations from the Japanese government. As seen above, it is possible to persuade victim-survivors to not receive Japan’s money that evades responsibility in the attempts to seek a fundamental resolution. It is also possible for victim-survivors to receive the money in some cases, and friction may appear in the process of persuading. It is irresponsible to report that the victim-survivors were stigmatized without any grounds.

Furthermore, JoongAng Daily’s decision to quote the stance of Muto Masatoshi, a notable anti-Korean figure who denies Japan’s state and legal responsibilities and the truths of Japanese military sexual slavery crime in an agenda triggered by a victim-survivor who is demanding resolution of the issue is questionable. Muto Masatoshi had slandered the Korean Council as “an organization that engages in anti-Japanese movement and uses the Japanese military sexual slavery issue to build ties with North Korea, exacerbating Japan-Korea relations.”

3. Reports on the mismanagement of donation funds

Even the “donation fund issue” that was even taken up by the National Tax Service was covered excessively

Among reports of Lee Yong-soo halmoni’s press conference, the most widely covered topic was the Korean Council’s “mismanagement of funds.” 7 newspapers had written a total of 15 articles, which were more in number compared to 11 articles on “allegations of [Yoon’s] prior knowledge of the 2015 agreement.” Most newspapers had covered the issue except the Hankyoreh, which had addressed the mismanagement of funds with a focus on the Korean Council’s clarifications. On this topic, the reports surpassed the resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue or problems raised by Lee Yong-soo halmoni, going as far as identifying private information or putting forth false allegations.

Lee Yong-soo’s remarks on donation funds at the press conference on May 7 were “What have the protests (Wednesday Demonstrations) done? They were of no use” and “I celebrated my birthday at a hotel. The director of the Daegu Citizens’ Forum for Halmoni’s historical museum arranged to provide the 10 million won of congratulatory money to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. They should use it for the halmonis. For 120 days, I had to go to Washington D.C. to try to pass the [U.S. House of Representatives] resolution but not one person supported me financially. I don’t even know where the donation funds are used.” The Korean Council issued clarifications on all issues other than birthday congratulatory money, which was irrelevant to the organization.

The Korean Council has been undertaking mandatory regular audits as a foundation and has been disclosing monthly lists of donors, yearly reports on the amount of donation funds and statements on expense details, and annual financial statements. The National Tax Service also requested a re-disclosure as the Korean Council, despite having no intentions of doing so, had some errors in finances. Regardless of Lee Yong-soo’s press conference, it is always necessary to address the accounting errors that may arise due to the differences in fund operations between public foundations/civil society organizations and businesses. The problem is that some media went beyond Lee Yong-soo’s statements or the Korean Council’s clarifications, misconstruing the issue to make it seem as though there were substantial malfeasances. They even reported on the monthly income of Yoon Mee-hyang, fees for her child’s study abroad, and Kim Bok-dong scholarship.

Reports that attack [Yoon’s] daughter’s study abroad fees and Kim Bok-dong scholarship are groundless and lack public interest

The first paragraph of Chosun Ilbo’s <Yoon Mee-hyang and her husband sent their daughter to the U.S. for study abroad, while paying only 6.4 million won for income tax for the past 5 years>(5/11) says “Lee Yong-soo criticized the Korean Council for ‘using’ her. Yoon’s daughter is currently studying abroad at a prestigious university in the United States.” Although these two facts are irrelevant to one another, the article connects them to make a negative impression that “Yoon Mee-hyang used ‘comfort women’ victim-survivors to send her daughter to study abroad.” Chosun Ilbo did not hide its intentions, arguing that “given that Yoon and her husband only reported around 1 million won for income tax, some pointed out how they raised money to pay for [their daughter’s] study abroad.” This is a typical negative used to spread groundless allegations to attack someone. In the end, Yoon had to explain that she spent the criminal lawsuit compensation her husband received as a victim of a spy manipulation case. This example illustrates that the media’s indiscriminate reports can lead to breach of a family’s privacy.

In <Kim Bok-dong scholarship given to children of staff at Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, National Farmers Federation, and Korea Alliance For Progressive Movement>(5/11), Chosun Ilbo used Lee Yong-soo halmoni to defame social movements as a whole. Chosun Ilbo problematized the fact that “the grantees of Kim Bok-dong scholarship in Korea, which the Korean Council had established in commemoration of the late Kim Bok-dong, were all children of civic group activists” as if it was a big fault. The article criticized this practice as being against Kim Bok Dong halmoni’s will as “‘Kim Bok-dong scholarship fund,’ which was first established after Kim had donated her lifelong savings of 50 million won to the Korean Council to support students attending ethnic Korean schools in Japan,” was instead given to “children of staff working in civic groups or labor unions.” It also emphasized that “Bang Yong-seung, who is currently a board member at the Korean Council, had his children receive the scholarship.”

However, the Korean Council stated in its Kim Bok-dong scholarship application announcement in February 2019 that it “will support university students who are children of activists at civic groups working on women, human rights, peace, labor, and North-South Korea reunification issues which are carrying on Kim Bok-dong’s will.” This announcement was covered by media at the time, as exemplified in the Hankyoreh’s <The ‘lunar new year pocket money’ left by Kim Bok-dong halmoni>(2019/2/7). Chosun Ilbo, which had not even reported on the scholarship back then, is now raising its voice against the distribution of scholarship to children of civic group activists.

How have Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily written on the Japanese military “comfort women” issue?

Conservative media, which started from Lee Yong-soo halmoni’s press conference and went far beyond to mention “fake victims” and the “will” of late Kim Bok-dong, did not demonstrate the will to resolve the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. Are Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily, who led the reports, qualified to discuss the transparency or legitimacy of the late Kim Bok-dong or those of “comfort women” organizations? 

Immediately after the announcement of the Korea-Japan “comfort women” agreement on December 28, 2015, Chosun Ilbo argued in <Editorial/Evaluation and concerns on the “comfort women” agreement amid changing circumstances of East Asia politics>(2015/12/29) against being obsessed in the past, stating that “the hostile environment between Korea and Japan, tied to the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue, should not continue.” It also tried to persuade the Park Geun-hye administration, saying that “detailed explanations and consideration should be provided on the contents of the agreement.” In January 2017, after the hidden agreement to remove the Statue of Peace sparked controversies, Chosun Ilbo’s <Editorial/Would we resolve international relations through a one-dimensional perspective criticizing pro-Japan betrayers>(2017/1/16) argued that “sometimes we may need to make choices we do not like in diplomatic relations for a bigger and more important national interest” and claimed that “the country cannot move forward if emotional and one-dimensional criticisms of ‘being pro-Japan betrayers’ are raised every single time.”

Under the explicit title of <Editorial/Korea and Japan should now move forward>(2015/12/29) JoongAng Daily prioritized positive reviews including “a complete victory does not essentially exist in diplomacy,” “the agreement has drawn maximum concessions to the extent practically possible.” Even after the hasty agreement was exposed, JoongAng Daily taunted, “President Moon demanded ‘victim-centered approach.’ It sounds good in words” in <Kim Hyun-ki’s news corner/ Korea and Japan’s negotiations on the night before the “comfort women” agreement>(2018/1/3).

Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily are pouring reports that portray the Park Geun-hye administration as having faithfully explained the 2015 “comfort women” agreement to relevant civic groups, attacking Yoon, and are raising their voices for a “victim-centered approach.” They would first need to repent on whether they are sincere in seeking a resolution of the Japanese military sexual slavery issue.

When will the conservative media write reports for Japanese military “comfort women” victims?

Lee Yong-soo halmoni, who had not returned calls from the Korean Council or Yoon Mee-hyang, issued a statement on May 13 after the controversies expanded. In the statement, she emphasized that we should prioritize “Japan’s official acknowledgment of war crimes and apologies, investigation of truth and subsequent legal reparations, official punishment of perpetrators, and legal and systematic measures to prevent recurrence.” This was the main point since the May 7 press conference, but some media had strayed away from the point. Lee Yong-soo halmoni also stressed that “the groundless speculations, criticism, and division raised by established media have nothing to contribute to us.”

JoongAng Daily, whose reports had been excessively attacking Yoon and “comfort women” organizations, released an exclusive interview with Lee Yong-soo halmoni on May 14. In the interview, Lee pointed out problems with the media reports, noting that “I saw that (the media reports) contained a lot of false information,” “Yoon Mee-hyang worked hard.” In regards to the 2015 “comfort women” agreement, she said “I learned about the agreement through television on December 28. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have informed the victims if they had made (the agreement) for the victims,” criticizing the Park Geun-hye administration yet again. However, she also said to Yoon, “this is not right. [She] took money away” and to the Korean Council, “The Korean Council cannot be fixed. It must be dismantled.” “Why are they selling the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue?” In this interview, Lee Yong-soo halmoni emphasized the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue, stating that “history museums should be expanded and an education center should be created to teach [the history] correctly.” It is concerning, however, as to whether the conservative media might abuse her words in ways that are separate from Lee Yong-soo halmoni’s intentions. Political reports and all kinds of negatives led by Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily used Lee Yong-soo’s press conference as an excuse. They did not publish their reports for Japanese military “comfort women” victims. We can only reconfirm the painful reality that the so-called “conservative media” in our society does not report on the Japanese military sexual slavery issue from the victims’ perspective.