[ad_1]
MBC addressed the news from Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol’s Disciplinary Committee on the 17th and announced to SBS, that he marked ‘Channel A’s case is a conflict of opinion’ in the title of the report, saying, “We will take all legal actions, including a complaint against the Mediation Committee. “
This is because the day before, SBS reported on MBC, which first raised suspicions of the convergence of channel A, and made a ‘lack of faith’ such as misrepresenting the facts by reporting them for the purpose of “conflict of rights. On the 17th, SBS rebutted: “We reported the content of the prosecution and discipline committee discussions through a fair coverage process.”
On the afternoon of the 16th, SBS said: “The dictatorship of the prosecution, the leader of the private organization” … A report was published entitled “Channel A Case is a Kwon Eon Consistency”. The main subject in question is the testimony of prosecutor Lee Jeong-hwa that appears in the report.
This prosecutor is the person who wrote a report that it is difficult to apply the crime of abuse of authority to the ‘judge’s inspection documents’, one of the reasons for President Yun’s disciplinary action. The prosecutor also revealed that Park Eun-jeong, an inspector in charge of the Ministry of Justice, ordered the removal of the content.
According to SBS reports, the prosecutor testified that Yoon’s disciplinary committee did not properly conduct the investigation on Channel A. The Channel A incident here was first reported by MBC in March.
MBC reported on the suspicion that Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae and prosecutor Han Dong-hoon, an assistant to President Yoon, conspired to convict and pressure former Value Invest Korea representative Lee Chul, who is close to the passport. , to pay for the mischief of Roh Si-min, the president of the Roh Moo Hyun Group. It was a report that started with the Jiamugae report, called Informer X.
The prosecutor’s testimony reported in the media is that the investigation team did not investigate properly despite the fact that the investigation team secured the record of the call between MBC and informant X Ji in February, before the time that reporter Lee Dong-jae threatened the reporter.
This is the tone with which MBC and informant X planned a case of alleged violation of the ethics of coverage and convergence of successions of the Channel A reporter with the so-called ‘suspicion of contradictory opinions of MBC’.
In a 16 report, SBS designated the MBC official as ‘MBC reporter’ and said: “The investigation team has secured the record of the call between the MBC reporter and the X informant, but did not investigate properly,” it said. this testimony.
SBS said: “If reporter X spoke with the MBC reporter before or after contacting the Channel A reporter, there is a possibility of a conspiracy and charges may not be established. He is known to have testified. ”
MBC corrected the facts through a press release on the 17th. The key point is that the person who reported on the phone call from insider X Ji in February was not MBC reporter Jang In-soo, who reported on the allegations. convergence of sequences in channel A, but the PD of Kim Jung-min. The call at the time is said to have been not about the Channel A incident, but about private equity.
MBC said: “The MBC employee who spoke to Reporter X in February 2020 was not a reporter from the press headquarters, but Kim Jung-min from the PD Notebook Team, who was preparing to broadcast a private equity trilogy at that time. moment. (The content of the call) was related to the private equity fund, “he said.” The time PD Kim received the report on ‘Proverb Convergence’ from Channel A was on March 7, 2020. “
MBC said: “At the time, it was a busy time when the transmission of Part 1 of the Private Equity Fund was completed (March 3) and Parts 2 and 3 were prepared, and PD Kim reported this report on March 9. 2020 (Monday). He said: “And on March 10, he met at the company and told him what he had heard. Subsequently, reporter Jang In-soo reported on the substance of the so-called professing convergence at the news desk. “
MBC said: “SBS is responsible for proving the report that MBC Reporter ‘made a call with Informer X in February 2020. If SBS reports an issue that cannot be proven, I expect SBS to admit the misinformation and correct it quickly” . ” If SBS fails to take reasonable action even though it is clear misinformation, MBC will take all legal action, including a complaint against the Media Arbitration Committee. “Prevented.
MBC is also reportedly planning to submit content evidence to SBS that it will take legal action if the misinformation is not corrected.
On the other hand, the SBS said on the 17th: “We report the content of the prosecution and discipline committee discussions through a fair coverage process” and “Furthermore, we are confirming the facts related to this and will respond accordingly.”
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
