“Side A stated their position, while side B refuted it as untrue.” This is a familiar pattern we often encounter in news articles. It may seem as though both sides are being reported fairly, but what the reader truly wants to know is missing: Who is telling the truth?

Even simple facts that could easily be verified are often wrapped in the phrase “claims from both sides.” A single document, a recorded file, or on-site reporting could reveal the truth, yet under the guise of so-called “mechanical neutrality,” the media opts for false equivalence—or, in essence, abdicates responsibility. Balance is prioritized over truth, speed over verification, and quoting press releases over actual reporting.

However, even if it takes time, accuracy must come first. The moment false claims are quoted without scrutiny, the journalist becomes complicit in the lie—and a perpetrator. Most Korean media outlets merely list both sides’ assertions, leaving readers confused and unable to discern the truth.

In contrast, some media organizations strive to uncover the truth through in-depth fact-checking and investigative reporting. When claims conflict, the press must determine which side is lying by relying on physical evidence and objective data. Even when a claim can be proven false with minimal effort, it should not be presented as just “another side.” It is essential to explain how and why certain claims are distorted and to clearly state what evidence supports this.

Of course, reporting the truth often brings complaints and harassment from those who spread lies. But when such complaints arise, responding with “Please point out the inaccurate parts,” “Let us know if any important facts are missing or misreported,” or “We will fully guarantee your right of reply—but we will thoroughly investigate whether your claims are true” often leads to silence from the complainant.

There is a burden that comes with revealing the truth. Yet, when lies and truth are treated equally in the media, public trust is eroded and society becomes engulfed in informational chaos. Mechanical neutrality is not true neutrality. For the media to remain impartial, it must first approach the truth—and then stand fairly on that foundation. Merely presenting both sides does not fulfill journalistic duty; uncovering the truth does.

But is all of this solely the journalists’ fault? In Korea, reporters are often required to churn out dozens of articles a day, with little time or resources to verify facts due to pressure for clicks and views. These poor working conditions, flawed newsroom culture, and the lack of editorial independence compromise the principles of truth-based journalism.

The media must move beyond simply producing information to fulfilling its role as a watchdog of society. This requires deeper engagement with specific topics and allowing time for fact-checking and long-term investigative reports. Editorial independence must be protected, and a strict separation between the newsroom and advertising or business departments must be maintained. Independent media, not reliant solely on advertising, also plays a vital role. Planning issue-specific or investigative journalism projects and operating as a media cooperative funded by its members could be a viable alternative.

Ultimately, for such models to succeed, trust from readers is essential. That trust often requires confronting unjust power and resisting the demands of organized, self-serving interest groups. It’s not an easy task for a single journalist or one media outlet to take on. Ironically, preserving such journalism also depends on the organized power of many people.