South Korea accuses YouTube host of fake claim to drop president's probe
South Korea’s presidential office criticized a prominent YouTube host for circulating a claim that a deal was made to drop a prosecutor’s investigation into a sitting president, calling it highly inappropriate fake news. The Cheong Wa Dae statement said the matter is serious and that Korea’s media oversight bodies are likely to review the segment, underscoring the government’s stance that misinformation on major issues will be addressed.
The host in question is Kim Eo-jun, who runs the YouTube program News Factory, a long-running show with more than 2 million subscribers that has become influential among supporters of the ruling party. The program’s profile has earned him the nickname “the president at Cheong Wa Dae” among some supporters, reflecting his reach within political circles.
Last June, Kim staged a large talk-concert at Inspire Arena on Yeongjong Island in Incheon. The event drew prominent ruling‑party figures, including former President Moon Jae-in and, at the time, a leading party leader candidate. Kim appeared in the show’s opening by singing What a Wonderful World and introducing himself jokingly as “soon to be a Supreme Court justice.”
Controversy surged after May 10, when a former MBC journalist, Jang In-su, appeared on Kim’s YouTube program and claimed that a senior government official close to the president had pressed prosecutors to drop the presidential case. Kim called the appearance a “scoop.” The episode prompted swift attention within the Blue House and a broader political backlash.
On March 13, Cheong Wa Dae’s senior political adviser Hong Ik-pyo dismissed the exchange as “a claim with no value” and described it as inappropriate fake news. He said the matter would likely be examined by Korea’s Broadcasting and Communications Review Committee, which oversees traditional and new media for misinformation. The Blue House later clarified that internet media are not subject to that body’s review, but are within the remit of the Press Arbitration Act for mediation and correction.
Kim responded by saying he did not know in advance that Jang would advance the drop‑the‑case claim, and questioned why he should apologize. He argued that if lawsuits arise, they would be fought, and suggested the show’s high audience could fuel such accusations about him and his guests.
Within the Democratic Party, leaders pressed for a strong response. Floor leader Park Chan-dae urged a firm response to what he called a “baseless” conspiracy about prosecutorial actions, while reform‑minded members argued that the party must uphold rigorous fact‑checking. Some pro‑government critics suggested that the episode highlighted the power and influence of media personalities allied with the party, calling for accountability and caution about inviting certain figures on prominent programs.
The episode has intensified debates inside the ruling bloc about media responsibility and accountability ahead of elections, and it has prompted public scrutiny of how politicians use media platforms to shape narratives. For U.S. readers, the affair underscores how South Korea’s highly connected media environment—where leading commentators can significantly influence public discourse—intersects with politics, regulatory oversight, and cross-border concerns about misinformation in a digital age. It also highlights the attention U.S. investors, policymakers, and tech platforms pay to how Seoul moderates misinformation, media influence, and the interplay between media and governance in a key ally.