This study tried to develop local governments and research field expands of journalism and press law by considering the implications of press disputes in the relationship between local governments and press in law and institutional level.
In the relationship between government authority and press disputes, they are not either one-sided subordination or capture, but a mechanism for the emergence of containment and opposition based on the independence of both sides.
The process from the occurrence of a dispute to a settlement becomes a standard for checking the power relationship between the both sides.
Therefore, disputes between government authority and press are not only distinguished from negative sense of disputes but also have different implications from press disputes experienced by regular person.
The purpose of this study is to focus on the characteristics of the press disputes on local governments and head of local governments.
In order to clarify this, previous studies on the relationship between the government and the press were reviewed, characteristic analysis of the relationship between local governments and local media, mechanism analysis of resolving press disputes between both sides were implemented.
In addition, the legal principles applied by the court to defamation that a representative type of rights and interests infringed by press reports, were also reviewed.
The subjects of the analysis are press arbitration cases filed by public officials including local governments and head of local governments to the Press Arbitration Commission and press lawsuit cases filed with the court.
The analysis period is 36 years from 1981 to 2017. During this period, press disputes between all local governments, the central and local media of the country were studied.
For statistical analysis, 571 cases of press arbitration (87 cases of metropolitan local governments, 484 cases of basic local governments) and 28 cases of press lawsuit were sampled.
To this, quantitative and qualitative analysis were performed. As the conclusion of the study, the following three points were drawn.
First, in press arbitration and press lawsuit, institutional measures are devised to prevent misuse or abuse of rights by local governments and head of local government, and local governments should reorganize unconstitutional local regulations that subordinate local media and infringe on freedom of the press.
Second, the courts must improve the predictability of judgments and restore judicial trust by being faithful to the legal principles that has expanded the scope of immunity of the press, and ultimately legislative measures are needed to control the strategic lawsuits(SLAPP) of local governments and head of local governments.
Third, as the power of local governments grows bigger, the concern about the arbitrary by the head of local government increases, so expectations for the press as the Fourth Estate of checking role are raised.
In response, the press should revive its original criticism by faithful to the principles of journalism on fact reporting and impartial reporting.