Can Kim Eo-jun’s influence be dismantled?

Chin Jung-kwon

The author is a professor at Kwangwoon University.

The recent death of Jürgen Habermas is symbolically significant. Habermas, a German philosopher known for his theory of communicative rationality, articulated the idea of an ideal speech situation and a public sphere grounded in rational discourse. Yet such a space has rarely existed in reality. It has functioned more as a normative aspiration than a reflection of how public communication actually operates. Ideals belong to the realm of thought, while political life is often driven by material desires. For Karl Marx, this meant interests rooted in economic structure, while Sigmund Freud emphasized human drives and desire. By the 20th century, such materialist interpretations had become widely accepted.

From this perspective, there is little reason to mourn the so-called collapse of the public sphere. Something that never fully existed cannot truly collapse. The phrase is better understood as meaning that even the limited aspiration for rational communication as a guiding norm has weakened in contemporary society.

The concept of the public sphere was historically tied to print culture, and later electronic media broadly followed its regulatory ideals. However, the rise of digital platforms has fundamentally altered this structure. Commentator Yoo Si-min has described legacy outlets as “conventional media,” a characterization that has even been echoed by political leaders. The newer forms of media they favor operate under different principles. Left-leaning YouTuber Kim Eo-jun’s program openly embraces partiality rather than neutrality. When fairness is replaced by declared bias, the space of public discourse risks turning into one of mobilization and agitation.

Recent controversy surrounding allegations of prosecutorial dealmaking illustrates this transformation. Claims that Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho may have signaled a withdrawal of prosecution could contain elements of truth. However, assertions that such actions were exchanged for expanded investigative authority follow a pattern typical of conspiracy narratives, closely resembling those long associated with Kim.

These narratives tend to follow a familiar structure: Someone invokes presidential authority to negotiate with prosecutors, reviving an institution previously seen as weakened, which then uses its restored power to target the president. The conclusion is often a call to block legislative initiatives. This rhetorical pattern reflects a style that has gained traction in certain segments of the media landscape.

At its core, the current dispute reflects an internal power struggle within the ruling camp over future nominations and political leadership. It also signals a broader contest between political actors ahead of the next presidential race. Kim, frequently described as an influential commentator, has been portrayed as seeking to shape candidate selection as a “kingmaker.” As conspiracy narratives begin to turn inward and target members of the ruling bloc, some who once tolerated or promoted such discourse have started to warn of its dangers.

Even the president has addressed the issue, noting that a small number of individuals and groups seek to exploit freedom of expression to secure privileged influence. Figures once regarded as allies are increasingly being recast as liabilities. Yet this shift does not necessarily indicate a broader rejection of conspiracy-driven narratives. Rather, it suggests selective distancing from narratives that have become politically inconvenient.

This raises a fundamental question: can Kim’s influence truly be dismantled? The answer may not be straightforward. For years, segments of the ruling party’s support base have been shaped by narratives that blur the boundary between fact and speculation. Kim has played a central role in producing, distributing and amplifying such narratives. Efforts to replace his influence may face structural limitations, as few figures command comparable reach or authority within that media ecosystem.

Recent political developments further highlight this tension. Calls for parliamentary investigations into multiple cases have been framed by some as efforts to uncover hidden truths, while critics argue that they reflect the institutionalization of speculative claims within formal political processes. In at least one case involving illicit financial transfers to North Korea, courts have issued guilty verdicts, underscoring a gap between judicial findings and competing narratives in the public sphere.

Despite appearances that Kim is under pressure, his influence appears to remain substantial beneath the surface. The current situation seems less like a definitive resolution than a temporary accommodation among competing political forces. In some respects, the outcome may even be interpreted as a partial victory for his approach to political communication.

The public sphere may remain an aspiration rather than a fully realized reality. However, abandoning even that aspiration carries consequences. Political reforms driven by contested or distorted narratives risk producing unintended outcomes that ultimately affect ordinary citizens.

If there is any consolation, it lies in the political battles ahead: local elections in June, followed by party conventions in August where both the ruling and opposition parties will elect their next leaders. The intensity of recent developments suggests that future conflicts could be even more dramatic. In an environment marked by uncertainty and polarization, such developments may become one of the few elements sustaining public attention.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.