The UK economic and business news publication Financial Times is apparently taking some of Korea’s advice and is gaining a “better understanding” of the Korean economy. According to the state sponsored propaganda organ Dong-A Ilbo the Financial Times is finally starting to write some positive press on Korea lately.
Experts say the Financial Times has changed its view on Korea given that the country is seeing the fastest recovery among major economies…
… One theory for the change in the daily’s stance is the replacement of its Seoul correspondent, who would irk Seoul due to differing views over Lone Star’s investment in Korea Exchange Bank.
I like this quote:
In addition, high-ranking officials from economy-related ministries since last year have held regular meetings with foreign correspondents in Seoul to explain economic issues.
Emphasis mine.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Strange that the Dong-A doesn’t identify either the outgoing or incoming FT correspondent. Given the new attention, I wonder if the FT’s new guy will feel the need to establish his bona fides by running a few “negative” stories of his own.
Anyway, as long as the Korean economy keeps humming along, the powers that be in the Ministry of Disinformation or whatever should refrain from trying to game the system. Korea’s success speaks for itself.
DLB
Have you guys noticed any negative slant on S Korea in the FT? I could be wrong but I’ve never really noticed it. At a bad time in the credit crunch John Authers, investment editor of the FT, went to Seoul and was commenting on how upbeat the city and economy looked despite economic news. Is it possible the Korean press was being a little over-sensitive in judging the FT to have a negative opinion of S Korea’s economic prospects?
Robin,
I’d say that the FT has been markedly more positive on Korea in the past four months or so… but back in 07 and 08… different story.
But at the same time it’s kind of hard not to be positive on Korea’s overall economy as of late. As DLB alluded to, you’d have to be a pretty bad business journalist to ignore the fact that Korea has pretty much thrived (overall) in this shitty economy unlike most of the other G20.
The whole thing is preposterous. The government disliked Anna Fifield’s articles to the point of issuing an RFP for PR companies to try to “make foreign papers write more positive stories on Korea by providing them with a realistic view of the Korean economy.” She was writing at a time when the Korean economy wasn’t so hot. Around the same time she left for the Middle East and was replaced by Christian Oliver, the current correspondent, Korea’s economy started to show signs of improvement.
WangKon, No need to cross out “state sponsored propaganda organ” when writing about the Dong-A Ilbo. If it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Thanks ecorn.
Btw anyone have some special insight into the chances of a KORUS FTA being signed sometime in the next say three years?
I dunno…. why don’t you ask the UAW?…
Btw… I’m gonna post about that soon.
Cool, looking forward to the post.
UAW, hah…
True story: The Ministry of Strategy and Finance believed that the FT, The Times and the BBC were anti-Korean because the government blocked HSBC from buying Lone Star’s share of KEB in 2008.
I wonder what their explanation is for negativity about the government from their own Korean press? Local papers are more negative about the government than the foreign press.
Damn Robert.. I have to say, your cast of expats with expert knowledge about Korea just keeps getting better and better. First is was Brendon Carr, then I started commenting, and now the guy who wrote The Book on The Koreans!
But your example’s all wrong. That’s a deteriorating progression…
Throw a dog a bone and all he does is bite your leg.
The government screwed over Lone Star well and good and they expect the foreign press to be magnanimous about it: “You don’t understand Korea” and all that. And in line with what ecorn said, no foreign companies have gotten the shaft since Christian came over and the economy has been pretty good compared to the rest of the world, so why would he be negative? Either that or they’ve finally worked out the kinks in their top-secret mind control program.
The Ministry has every reason to believe so. Those organs are mouthpieces for neoliberalism, globalizm, and International Capital. Even if the specific HSBC issue isn’t the reason in this case, their general sympathies lead them to be hostile towards anything that impedes International Capital. They’re not so much anti-Korean as they are anti-Nation-State.
Domestic press is obviously motivated by different factors than the foreign press.
#13: You make it sound like “International Capital” is a bad thing.
#13 Minge
>>They’re not so much anti-Korean as they are anti-Nation-State.<<
Most foreign press in Korea are Koreans and I think they are neither anti-Korean nor anti-Nation-State.
#10
>>But your example’s all wrong. That’s a deteriorating progression… <<
Brendon is correct, except on the old issue of foreign schools…
@breen
I suspect we have quite different opinions on what constitutes anti-Korean and anti-Nation-State. But that’s a whole nother discussion.
The foreign press in Korea comprised of Koreans aren’t immune to influence from the media they work for. Where and how they were educated matters as well.
Funny. Second time I’ve seen “neoliberal” used as a semi-pejorative today.
BTW, you know that coming from a minjokjuija, some might say those terms are codewords.
#17 Minge
I think you know not of what you speak. The big difference between Korean and foreign media covering Korea is that the former are vulnerable to pressure and willing to pull stories. Any huge ideological difference – even with regard to affection for Korea – is reader speculation. It cannot be seen from the coverage. One FT correspondent in Seoul, for example, was a self-described Trotsyite, but you couldn’t tell that from the stories.
I’m using it as a descriptive term, not as a “semi-pejorative.” I don’t like it, obviously, but just because I’m using it doesn’t mean I’m using it pejoratively.
They’re not codewords. They’re specific and concrete things.
And I think you’re unfairly trying to insinuate here that I’m anti-semitic.
Breen nails this issue。
It is more a condecending insult than a compliment for a journalist to be described by the Finance Ministry as understanding Korea in this context and especially with the connotation of accept that the word understand has in Korean。
Would I do something like that?
@breen
You can dismiss it as speculation. I don’t think it’s simply a matter of being “vulnerable to pressure and willing to pull stories.” There are differences, involving ideology and interests. If you’re in the Western mainstream, you’re not likely to think that these outlets have certain sympathies. And I wouldn’t think that the FT would tolerate Trotskyism of all things to be preached regularly in its pages.
I’m not sure what you mean. Isn’t that what you were suggesting?
I find sexy in dry.
“Korean press was being a little over-sensitive [of the foreign press]”
Seriously? In over-sensitive Koreans? Now I have heard everything!
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 3 trackbacks }