On the evening of October 9, a brief message circulated stating, 'Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon will hold a resignation press conference at 10 PM.' The message lacked details such as the reason, location, or source, merely indicating it was received from someone. Despite its brevity, this assertion about the current mayor's future spread rapidly online and reached reporters covering the Seoul City Hall. The city government denied the claim, stating it was baseless and announced plans to request a cyber investigation. This unexpected resignation rumor emerged just as Mayor Oh awaits a ruling in his appeal on the 23rd.
The notice sent to reporters was notably cautious, urging them to exercise care in sharing and reporting unverified information. It should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the resignation rumors. The issue lies in the fact that unfounded claims had proliferated to the extent that such a notice was necessary. A statement from an unknown author has turned into a demand for clarification and warning, leaving the responsibility for explanation solely on the parties involved.
The timing of the message is also significant. Just two days prior, on October 7, the Seoul High Court acquitted former President Yoon Suk Yeol of charges related to receiving free public opinion surveys. The court found no evidence of tacit agreement and ruled that the surveys, provided as political advice, could not be considered a financial benefit under political funding laws, overturning a previous guilty verdict.
The panel, led by Chief Judge Koo Hoe-geun, is also hearing Mayor Oh's appeal. However, Yoon's acquittal does not guarantee Oh's innocence. Each case must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances, including the nature of the alleged free provision and the evidence of the parties' awareness and involvement. Nonetheless, the fact that the appellate court's judgment could differ from the first trial in Yoon's case has been confirmed, providing Mayor Oh with a reason to await the court's final determination.
Shortly after, the resignation rumors surfaced. The temporal proximity of the two cases raises questions. However, questions and proof are not the same. There is currently no basis to conclude that those uncomfortable with the possibility of Oh's acquittal are the ones spreading rumors. Whether from political rivals or associates, one cannot simply label them as disseminators based solely on political interests. Criticizing unfounded rumors while adding baseless conspiracy theories undermines logical foundations.
Nevertheless, the inability to identify the source does not allow for a casual dismissal of the situation. Criticism of policies and the fabrication of resignation timelines are distinct matters. The former can be contested with public facts and logic, while the latter creates an impression that the political life of the individual has ended, especially for someone awaiting a ruling. Without needing to explain the issues being contested in court, the mere image of 'someone about to resign' can be left behind.
The media's responsibility must also be examined. Reporting that resignation rumors are circulating is clearly different from reporting that someone is resigning. Articles conveying the city's denial and request for an investigation cannot be accused of endorsing false information. However, the impact of a clarification article can still diminish. If a headline prominently features 'Oh Se-hoon resignation' while relegating the denial to the background, readers may remember the term 'resignation' before the clarification. This creates a paradox where a report intended to verify becomes a megaphone for rumors.
The threshold for reporting should be higher for unverified statements. Simply including specific dates and times does not constitute evidence of fact. A message received without verifiable sources should not be treated as public information. What the media should inquire about is not the timing of the press conference but who made such claims and on what basis. If reporting a denial, that denial should be clear in the headline.
The city's announcement of a request for an investigation must be confirmed through actual receipt and follow-up actions. It is essential to distinguish between the original author and simple transmitters and to trace the distribution channels. If there was organized involvement, it must be revealed; if not, that should also be made clear. An investigation is a process to clarify facts, not to confirm political speculation.
Mayor Oh can be subject to criticism and must face the court's judgment. However, discussions regarding his future must also be based on verified facts. It is not normal political practice for an anonymous line to announce a mayor's departure ahead of a court ruling.
The claim of a resignation at 10 PM on October 9 lacks substantiation. What is now needed is not a new timeline but the source of that single line. Who is shaking Oh Se-hoon? The answer should emerge from verified facts, not the size of suspicion.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.