Since I report and write exclusively on IT related issues, the latest press limits set by government will probably affect me less than other reporters. As I write this article, I have to be just, fair and careful of my own opposing views to the latest government move.

Having said that and been in and out of the MIC (Ministry of Information and Communication) press briefing rooms over the years, I just want to express few points.

Reason for writing this article can be attributed to many but I hope that my own views here can somehow contribute to better IT industry, let inform Korean IT firms with current policy which could greatly affect their success and downfall and also let the government hear and know of other opposing opinions out there.

Presently there are hundreds of news Medias in Korea which includes internet portals and magazines but only the few major ones get preferential special treatments. The IT sector is not an exception. It also falls into the minority here.

Among the leading proponents who are in favor of the pressroom unification say that the change will put an end to culture of no transparency and favoritism given only to those few media companies with unfair, discriminating and habit of not being open to other media companies and journalists. But one must not be hind-sighted by mere this assertion alone.

As a journalist who frequently reports from MIC, my reasons are clear why I oppose to the merger and abolition of pressroom.

I can acknowledge that the press has hurt its own image with corruption and not been transparent to some extent but that does not justify the government controlling the limits and boundaries of the press. In any event, press can not be under any kind of restraints. The freedom of press is the people's rights.

Administration has been insisting open-press but is it really up to bar with other leading nations?
Representing an electronic media and not a major press required me to stamp sign in sheet for three months for accessing the MIC's pressroom to earn a regular member status. If I did not enter the press briefing room, chance of meeting anyone with source was slim and none. But now even with my upgraded press member privileges I still do not get an assigned seat to report from. With all this I just can't see myself accepting the merger and abolishment of pressroom announced by the administration.

The biggest reason, lack of openness, the way government officials handle and handing out information still lacks in luster a great deal. Government Information Agency talks about its intent to be more open and frank about the information they handout and less concentrate on upgrading e-briefing when it trims down number of the press briefing rooms but that just a sweet talking without a merit.

An example, the administration with the latest Korea-US FTA negotiations has only been releasing news that is favorable to Korea and deliberately avoided or delayed releasing any unpopular news until the end of the negotiations. What's more, its been using tax money to run ads to promote its position and blocked any opposing campaigns that arise from privately funded ads.

These kind of repeated actions by the administration are just too familiar to the people. The latest decision to merge and abolish most of press briefing room too was never in discussion with the people. The decision was made from Government Information Agency and the President's office period.

Public's right to know, path of information unsettling
With all this in mind, the latest decision to get rid of number of pressrooms just makes the minor reporters to lose its crucial channel of source of information. Since 2003, any journalists were allowed to participate in Government briefing without restraint but with the new unified press briefing meeting or finding any significant source provider will be next to impossible.

The measure aimed to open up more for public in fact can demote quality of information press can deliver to the people.

I hate to admit it but source of information, the leak that the government wants to avoid in many times come from word of mouth of other more experienced reporters who get their share of insider tips. This is not at all from view of defeated rather an attempt to make a point about policy that is destined for failure. I'm restressing the importance of lifting media restrictions.

As a reported that's at the actual scenes, I'm certain this is as close as you can get to the truth. What is needed now foremost (putting rights of minor press aside) is to protect everyone, press itself for it to function normally.

Lets not throw away the whole system because of one blemish
Let's not talk about all too familiar opposing voices of blaming totalitarianism of yester years or blocked freedom of speech or the administration's excuse; setting policy to be leading nation alike. Rather, focus on interconnecting government and its people for healthy press, clean, uncorrupted society that were hopes of our predecessors. The freedom of speech must be preserved with least reservations.

There is no way to prove it for sure but there actually are fake reporters and fake media companies, especially the ones that get preferential treatments. There is fear in me: the administration's intention to control, restrict press and media in sake of fair open press for all.

Authorities placing media restrictions in the hope to rid of blemishes in the current press system is a dangerous decision indeed, the one that can blindfold public's ear and eye. The weight of this issue is not just a matter of merging and abolishing pressrooms rather, it's a matter of government over stepping on the very foundation of the people's rights.