The materials provided mix different people who happen to share the same name.
As a result, it becomes difficult to pin down a single, clear subject.
Notably, mid-January 2026 personnel notices from KBS (Korean Broadcasting System, South Korea's public broadcaster) are intertwined with records about a former professional baseball player.
This column analyzes how that confusion formed, why it matters, and what practical choices institutions and readers have.
“A Maze Built by One Name” — Which Comes First: Verification or Accountability?
Overview
Confusion is real.
Mid-January 2026 KBS personnel announcements show shifts in senior roles within its News and Current Affairs division.
The name Kim Seong-han appears as the head of KBS's Disaster Media Center and, separately, matches a former baseball player and manager born in 1958 (a figure recorded in Korean baseball archives).
That overlap is more than a coincidence: it creates a structural risk that readers will conflate two distinct individuals.
Therefore, this episode raises institutional questions that go beyond identification errors: journalistic verification procedures, database management, and the clarity of public records.
Meanwhile, it exposes how a public broadcaster's personnel notices and a sports archive can treat the same name very differently, producing practical mismatches in everyday information use.
Core problem
Confusion cannot be left unaddressed.
Public records and journalism carry different responsibilities.
Two core problems emerge from this case.
First, when identical names appear across public documents and news reports, the risk of mistaken identity increases sharply.
Second, if information sources fail to provide clear context and cite verifiable origins, misunderstandings can spread quickly.
These two factors do more than produce factual errors; they shape how recipients judge people and events.
On the other hand, automated links between digital archives and search engines can amplify this confusion by connecting unrelated records that share only a name.
Therefore, tightening verification procedures and improving contextual labels are not mere recommendations; they become necessary safeguards.
Pro position — Prioritize clarity
Clear verification rules are essential.
Proponents argue that institutions and newsrooms must strengthen how they identify people in public documents and reporting.
First, acknowledging that many people share the same name means public agencies and media should routinely add minimal identifying details: gender, birth year, and current position, for example.
This simple practice reduces reader confusion and helps prevent reputational harm or institutional mistakes caused by misattribution.
For instance, a personnel notice could add affiliation, birth year, and one line of key background.
Such standards lower false matches during searches and archive linking.
Second, newsrooms should formalize internal verification processes.
Reporters and editors should go beyond listing sources: they should cross-check databases, call relevant contacts, and verify official documents before publishing.
Otherwise, hasty reporting for the sake of speed risks long-term credibility loss.
At the same time, organizations that issue personnel notices should clean and maintain their own records to avoid external confusion.
Third, technical measures should accompany procedural changes.
Establishing metadata standards and adopting unique person identifiers (IDs) can prevent name collisions at the system level.
Governments and public institutions could design a standardized identity framework and work with private media to include non-sensitive identifiers in public announcements.
Over time, this would improve search accuracy and reduce confusion for information consumers.
Con position — Beware costs and overreach
Excessive regulation can have unintended consequences.
Those who caution restraint accept the goal of clarity but warn about method and scope.
First, requiring extensive identifying details in every notice and report can slow down reporting and reduce flexibility.
Timeliness is often in the public interest, and complex verification steps can hinder quick dissemination of important information.
Moreover, heavy paperwork requirements for institutions increase administrative costs, which smaller organizations and local news outlets may struggle to bear.
Second, introducing unique identifiers raises privacy and security concerns.
While IDs help disambiguate individuals, they also create new targets for data breaches and misuse.
For people who are not public figures, forcing identifiers into public records risks exposing private information.
Without robust legal and technical protections, an ID system might create greater harms than it solves.
Third, rigid standardization can erase local context and practice.
Centralized rules that ignore cultural and organizational differences can produce one-size-fits-all policies that harm smaller actors and stifle diversity in reporting.
Therefore critics urge a careful, cost-benefit approach that balances clarity with privacy, resilience, and the needs of smaller institutions.
Practical compromises and recommendations
Feasible middle paths exist.
The following recommendations aim for practicality and balance.
First, mandate a narrow minimum of identifying information.
For personnel announcements and major reports, recommend including affiliation, role, and a non-sensitive date such as birth year when appropriate.
This reduces confusion while limiting excessive exposure of personal data.
Second, encourage shared, checklist-based verification manuals between media and institutions.
A personnel reporting checklist might include source confirmation, affiliation check, and a same-name screening step.
Publishing these guides online or distributing them as short handbooks will make them accessible to small outlets as well.
Third, phase in technical solutions gradually.
Start pilot programs that assign internal identification codes only to subjects with clear public profiles, excluding sensitive personal data.
Simultaneously, develop legal and technical rules for data security and privacy before wide deployment.
Fourth, invest in education and cultural change.
Regular training in newsrooms and public agencies about careful name verification encourages habits that outlast short-term rules.
Over time, culture and practice can restore trust more effectively than one-off regulations.
Taken together, these measures are more than administrative tweaks: they are steps toward restoring confidence in public information.
Conclusion
The practical point is balance.
This episode shows how name duplication can expose gaps in verification and institutional design.
Clarity is not an absolute value; it must be weighed against cost, privacy, and diversity concerns.
The recommended path is incremental and pragmatic.
Minimum labeling, checklist-based verification, phased identifier pilots, and sustained education form four practical pillars.
They offer a realistic way to raise trust across workplaces and institutions.
Which approach do you support?
