L'affaire Sankei vue par le Wall Street Journal

Publié le par daisuki

Voici un article qui explique bien, à mon avis, le vrai point problématique dans cette affaire du journal Sankei. J'aimerais ajouter que la Corée du Sud déteste le journal Sankei qui a dévoilé leurs mensonges, elle préfère le journal Asahi qui diffusait pendant 32 ans et encore aujourd'hui les articles qui lui plaisent (la présidente a même offert des cadeaux pour la fête de l'automne au journal Asahi de Séoul cet été).



En effet, grâce à Sankei, le peuple japonais a pu avoir des informations cachées jusqu'à l'année dernière sur le processus de la création du discours de KONO: Le discours a été fait sans aucune preuve, sous la manipulation de l'opinion publique des deux pays par le journal Asahi, uniquement sur la base de quelques témoignages ambigus et invérifiables (manque les lieux, noms, dates, etc...) des anciennes femmes de réconfort. Depuis ce scoop de Sankei, la majorité des Japonais se fâchent contre la Corée du Sud et le journal Asahi qui avaient trahi leur confiance.





« Reporters in the Dock »

South Korea and Thailand use criminal libel against media.

The wall street journal , 11 septembre 2014

South Korean prosecutors have twice questioned Tatsuya Kato, the Seoul bureau chief of Japan's Sankei Shimbun newspaper, on suspicion of criminally libeling President Park Geun-hye. Since the Sankei is well known for its nationalist editorial stance—it opposes apologies for Japan's wartime behavior—it's safe to say the Korean public feels little sympathy. But that makes it even more important to defend the principle of freedom of the press.


Mr. Kato's predicament—he has not been charged but can't leave the country—is a good illustration of how criminal libel laws are used to suppress speech. He reported on rumors about President Park's whereabouts when the Sewol ferry capsized on April 16. That was damaging to the government because there were already questions about whether officials did enough to save the 304 people, many of them school children, who perished.


South Korean publications published similar reports, but prosecutors have not questioned their reporters. Instead the government went after a foreign-language newspaper with few readers in Korea. Why?

For one thing, picking a fight with an institution of the former colonial power is a popular way to deflect domestic anger. In this case it serves a double purpose, since the questioning will also deter South Korean reporters from writing critical articles about Ms. Park's handling of the crisis.

This chilling effect is what makes criminal libel so dangerous. The government can choose an unsympathetic defendant or topic to set an example. While civil libel cases can also limit press freedom, criminal prosecutors have much greater power to harm a journalist's life during an investigation and trial, not to mention the threat of fines and imprisonment upon conviction. When there is real damage to a plaintiff's reputation, that is best addressed by a civil lawsuit.

A similar case arose earlier this year in Thailand, where the Navy accused two journalists, Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian. Their Phuketwan website republished part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning Reuters report about officers' alleged mistreatment of Rohingya boat people, and are now in legal limbo awaiting trial. Since the Muslim refugees are unpopular with the Thai public, the prosecution is an opportunity for the military to quash criticism without creating a backlash.

Most countries have abolished libel as a criminal offense because its use is inevitably political. As long as such statutes remain on the books, freedom of expression is not safe.




NB : twitteur du journaliste Asahi en Séoul, content d'avoir reçu les cadeaux de la part de la présidente coréenne.





Commenter cet article