On December 17, the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee adopted the personnel hearing report on nominee Kim Jong-cheol by bipartisan agreement.
If the president signs off, Kim is likely to be appointed the inaugural chair of the new Broadcasting, Media and Communications Commission (the commission).
A chair appointment could speed up the commission's normalization and the drafting of rules for public broadcasters and related procedures.
However, the opposition has raised concerns about neutrality based on the nominee's history of political remarks, leaving room for further debate.
“Will the commission start moving after the report’s adoption?”
Executive summary
The issue is straightforward.
On December 17, 2025, the National Assembly committee adopted the personnel hearing report on Kim Jong-cheol, the nominee for chair of the Broadcasting, Media and Communications Commission, by agreement between ruling and opposition members.
The committee’s adoption can lead to presidential approval; if the president signs, the chair can be appointed without a separate plenary vote in the Assembly.
Consequently, observers argue the move could accelerate the end of the commission’s initial standstill.
Origins and context
The commission’s start-up matters.
The commission officially launched in October 2025 but has struggled to operate because commissioner appointments and basic rules were delayed.
The chair must be in place and the Assembly’s recommended commissioner slots filled before the commission can function normally.
Thus, adopting the personnel report is widely read as a first step toward filling that early institutional vacuum.
Implications and ripple effects
The effects could be quick to show.
The committee’s adoption carries no legal force by itself, but it sends a strong political signal.
If the chair is appointed, the commission can move forward on urgent items: rules for public-broadcasting boards, platform regulation, and privacy protections, among others.
In this sense, the committee’s bipartisan adoption reduces institutional uncertainty and helps plug a governance gap.
Arguments in favor
The case for moving forward is clear.
Supporters, including the ruling party, emphasize Kim’s legal and regulatory expertise.
He is a law professor with experience in drafting and interpreting media and communications law, and supporters say he has the design skills needed for institutional work.
Second, a working commission would restart delayed procedures, such as drafting rules about public-broadcaster board appointments—steps seen as essential to strengthen transparency and public service missions.
Third, rapid policy responses are required in a fast-changing media environment: digital transitions, platform market concentration, and data-breach incidents all demand timely regulation.
Long delays in the commission’s functioning could translate into real harm for the public. Therefore, appointing an experienced legal professional can secure policy continuity and speed.
Fourth, the bipartisan committee adoption itself matters procedurally.
The fact that both sides agreed in committee reduces, though does not eliminate, political friction and can be interpreted as an internal vote of confidence that helps restore institutional credibility.
Arguments against
Concerns are substantial.
The main opposition party highlights the frequency of the nominee’s political remarks.
Some of those statements, they say, undermine confidence in his ability to act impartially from a position of academic authority.
Because the chair supervises broadcasting and media, any perceived bias could trigger disputes over public-broadcasting independence.
Second, critics point to a lack of broad social legitimacy.
If the president pushes an appointment despite divided evaluations across parties, it may be difficult to secure societal acceptance.
A deficit in perceived legitimacy could make each of the commission’s future decisions subject to legal and political challenges.
Third, opponents say there were limits to technical vetting during the hearing.
Questions about real-world handling of issues such as data breaches—like the high-profile e-commerce data incident—led some to call for deeper scrutiny of the nominee’s practical competence in areas requiring technical and operational knowledge.
Finally, there is a risk of increased politicization: if the chair is seen as aligned with one political camp, the commission’s rulemaking could become a constant target of partisan conflict, slowing policy implementation and damaging long-term institutional trust.
Key risks
Watch the likely consequences.
If political conflict deepens, the commission’s decisions could be stalled by bias claims and lose effectiveness.
This is especially worrying when board composition or editorial policy of public broadcasters is at stake: any perception of undue influence can quickly erode audience trust.
Persistent distrust between parties may break institutional continuity and create policy confusion.
Another risk is a gap between expert and public expectations.
Professionals may emphasize speed and technical competence, while citizens often value neutrality and broad consensus (agreement among many people).
If that gap remains unaddressed, public acceptance of commission actions may be low and the political cost of implementation high.
Root causes and structural factors
Look beyond personalities.
The commission is new and suffered delays in filling seats and setting rules. Those gaps increased anxiety among stakeholders and made personnel choices more sensitive.
At the same time, the nominee’s public political comments amplified doubts about neutrality. Finally, deeper partisan differences over media governance raise the chance that appointments become arenas for broader ideological battles.
Therefore, the solution requires both institutional fixes and efforts to rebuild the nominee’s public legitimacy through clear communication and guardrails.
Public reaction
Reactions are sharply divided.
Progressive and ruling-party outlets and supporters welcome the prospect of stronger public-broadcasting rules and legal expertise from the nominee.
Conservative and opposition-aligned voices highlight neutrality worries and call the nominee unsuitable.
On social media, supporters stress the urgency of normalizing the commission, while critics warn that a forced appointment would deepen distrust. Overall, public sentiment mirrors political polarization and keeps close attention on the commission’s next moves.
Alternatives and recommendations
There are practical steps to reduce tension.
First, even after appointment, the commission should commit to transparent decision-making and public reporting to restore trust.
Publishing meeting minutes, strengthening stakeholder consultation, and involving external experts are ways to increase accountability.
Second, major rulemaking should aim for broad societal consensus. Where differences persist, mediation bodies or public consultations can help bridge gaps (consensus means wide agreement).
Third, on technical issues—platform regulation or privacy protections—the commission should collaborate with independent specialist groups to compensate for any internal experience shortfalls.
In short, combining institutional stability with procedural clarity and technical collaboration can help the commission fulfill its mandate while minimizing polarization.
Conclusion
The bottom line is clear.
The committee’s adoption of the personnel report is a critical turning point for normalizing the commission.
If the president approves the appointment, the chair could be installed quickly and the commission could resume stalled rulemaking and board appointments.
However, doubts rooted in the nominee’s public statements and the lack of full trust between parties remain unresolved challenges.
Therefore, even after an appointment, transparent governance, active public outreach to build consensus, and reinforcement of technical capacity will be essential to ensure the commission protects public-broadcasting independence while responding effectively to fast-moving media and technology issues.
What do you think?
