The returns of chef Baek Jong-won and actor Kwak Do-won to screens are reshaping the media landscape as the year ends.
The controversies around them differ in detail, but the public debate over their comebacks looks strikingly similar.
Producers' decisions and viewers' choices clash, putting public ethics on trial.
This column lays out the background, the main issues, and the arguments for and against, with the aim of a balanced view.
“Return or Pull the Plug?” The Weight of Decisions in Broadcasting
First, a concise summary of the cases.
Baek's first season was a major success.
However, criticism over origin labeling and possible violations of farmland regulations surfaced and led him to suspend activities in spring 2025.
Despite that, producers completed recording and editing and released "Black & White Chefs 2," which includes episodes featuring Baek.
By contrast, actor Kwak Do-won stopped activities after a drunk-driving incident in 2022; a Tving (a Korean streaming platform) original series, "Villains," which finished filming in 2022, is now set to be released in December 2025, effectively marking his return.
The timing and context of the two returns are different.
Baek's controversy flared recently, while Kwak's incident happened years earlier but its effects persisted.
Still, the outcome looks alike: public release was a choice that mixed producers' deliberation with legal, ethical, and commercial considerations.
Why release now?
First, producing a show requires many people and significant resources.
There is a clear operational reason not to leave the labor of crew and other cast members unseen.
Second, content that is already filmed or edited represents a large financial investment and stopping it can cause severe economic losses.
On the other hand, critics argue the seriousness of each controversy and public outrage must also be weighed.
Producers' choices are often pragmatic compromises intended to limit harm.
However, pragmatism does not always equal moral justification.
Thus, a decision to let a controversial figure appear is not merely an editing choice but a question of public interest.
It is also worth noting that viewers, advertisers, and platform rules influence how these decisions are made.
Arguments in favor of release.
Proponents first point to the damage to production teams.
If a finished project is cancelled outright, crew, supporting cast, and investors bear major losses.
They note that many dramas and variety shows are the product of months or years of preparation and deserve to be seen as finished works.
They also stress that viewers ultimately have the right to judge the work themselves.
The viewer-choice argument is simple.
If a show is well made and enjoyable, it should not be discarded because of one cast member's controversy.
This perspective reflects a liberal view that content consumption is an individual decision.
Some viewers say, "Don't punish 100 contestants for one person's fault," and support the releases on that basis.
Releasing the program can feel like an unavoidable reality.
Producers and platforms operate on release schedules and contractual commitments.
Some viewers prioritize the work's quality and either accept a return or remain indifferent.
Such public sentiment can function as a practical justification for release on economic and operational grounds.
Voices against the return.
Those who oppose a comeback highlight the serious nature of the incidents.
In Kwak Do-won's case, drunk driving is viewed as an act that could have caused death, which many consider a grave offense.
Critics argue that a simple apology is not enough reason for an immediate return to broadcasting.
Similarly, allegations about Baek Jong-won's labeling and farmland issues raise questions of fairness and transparency.
Opponents emphasize moral standards and public trust.
They view broadcasting as operating on public confidence, and a return before controversies are fully resolved may damage that trust.
If apologies seem insincere or measures to prevent recurrence are vague, a comeback can be perceived as an undeserved pardon.
A single release can reopen wounds for many people.
Even if intent is unclear, the gravity of an action raises the bar for social judgment.
Public distrust and emotional distance are not easily repaired in the short term.
Opponents therefore insist on prioritized restoration of public responsibility and thorough procedures before allowing a return.
A neutral, institutional perspective.
The core question is how to balance personal talent with social responsibility.
If institutional safeguards are weak, unfair outcomes will repeat.
For example, vague platform guidelines or inconsistent network review standards make predictable responses to similar incidents unlikely.
That is why clearer rules and processes are persuasive proposals.
Transparency in the comeback process can serve as an important buffer.
Alongside a sincere apology, public disclosure of concrete steps to prevent recurrence would be a starting point for rebuilding trust.
Programs such as completing ethics training, community service, or independent audits could function as institutional remedies.
At the same time, mechanisms must protect creative freedom and broadcasters' autonomy.
Institutional reform turns individual cases into social learning opportunities.
Ultimately, the industry should strengthen both ethical codes and practical standards so that administrative and review processes become predictable.
These changes would also affect job security and help protect workers involved in production.
I offer a practical balance to consider.
First, producers should publish the reasons behind comeback decisions transparently.
Second, the returning person should present a sincere apology plus concrete, verifiable steps to prevent recurrence.
Third, platforms and broadcasters must create clear guidelines so similar cases receive consistent responses.
The images show only one side of these events.
Viewer reactions play out online and offline at once.
Comments, petitions, and rating shifts make the social cost of a comeback visible.
Meanwhile, producers and actors sometimes choose release in defense of the work's completeness and artistic value.
Below is a short policy summary.
Introduce a pre-release assessment system to objectively gauge the scope and severity of harm.
Separate review, sanction, and comeback procedures so prevention of recurrence is codified.
Finally, strengthen mechanisms that give viewers enough information and real choices.
In closing.
The main takeaways are threefold.
Comeback decisions require not only producers' practical judgments but also public-ethical considerations.
We need verified ways to assess the sincerity of apologies and the effectiveness of measures to prevent recurrence.
At the same time, platforms and broadcasters must reform institutional rules to make sustainable solutions possible.
In the end, viewers decide — but society must set the terms.
The debate about returns is not only a personal issue but also a test of the broadcasting sector's institutional maturity.
Which criteria will you use to accept or reject a comeback?
