On November 21, the Office of the President announced that the president would no longer receive questions from the press on his way to work in the morning, which he had done since his inauguration. Media organizations and experts criticized that the latest decision meant that the president would no longer answer questions from the people. Earlier on November 20, the presidential office installed a wooden panel between the building entrance and the lobby.

Six organizations of active journalists including the National Union of Media Workers and the Journalists Association of Korea held a press conference in front of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on November 21 and criticized the Office of the President’s decision to suspend the morning press Q&A sessions. Yoon Chang-hyun, head of the National Union of Media Workers argued, “Discontinuing the informal press conferences and putting up a wall in front of the press room is a symbolic act meaning that the president will no longer communicate with the public,” and said, “The president should answer questions looking at the mouths of the journalists, not their toes.”

On November 19, the Office of the President told the secretaries of the Office of the President journalists that it was considering disciplinary measures against the MBC reporter. The presidential office said it was considering one of three measures: canceling the journalist registration, which would ban the media outlet from recommending journalists for one year; banning access to the press room; and replacing the reporter with another MBC reporter. They then asked the secretaries for their opinion.

The media organizations accepted the suspension of morning Q&A sessions with the press on grounds of conflicts with a particular reporter as an attempt to alienate reporters. Kim Dong-hoon, chairman of the Journalists Association of Korea said, “The president discontinuing the morning press Q&A sessions (because of a reporter from a certain media company) is an attempt to encourage complaints among the press and to alienate MBC,” and argued, “It is an obvious move to fuel conflicts among reporters.”

Experts also criticized that it was inappropriate for the presidential office to review disciplinary action against a reporter because of an argument. Hong Sung-cheol, a professor of media and visual arts at Kyonggi University said, “Demanding a reporter be replaced because he was on bad terms with a presidential secretary and not because of an obvious reason, such as any involvement in corruption, is taking the wrong approach.”

Some argued that the Constitution demanded that the president’s performance of his official duties be transparently disclosed. One university professor majoring in journalism said, “When we look at the ruling on the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye, it mentions that the president has to exercise her authority legally according to the Constitution and laws, and with the exception of some tasks that require security, her performance of official duties must be transparently disclosed and evaluated by the people.” He continued and said, “It is a strong standard by the Constitutional Court” on how the president should accept criticism from the press and accept the press as a watchdog and as a power keeping him in check.

Shin Mi-hee, secretary-general of the Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media also said, “If he had no awareness of the freedom of the press and the people’s right to know, he was senseless. If he still did it knowingly, then it was anti-constitutional behavior.” She argued, “He is being shameless, blaming the press for everything without any reflection on his own actions, such as the foul language incident and his selective perspective on the press.”

Citizens criticized the president and his office claiming that the morning Q&A sessions must continue. Choi (32), a worker, asked, “Didn’t the president first stress communication with the people when he pushed ahead and moved to Yongsan despite public opposition?” and said, “He pointed to a certain media outlet as the reason, but I think he eventually revealed the bare face of politics that refuses to communicate.”

On social media, one person even suspected that the Office of the President was trying to exclude MBC from the team of journalists covering the Office. She wrote, “It doesn’t make sense to stop answering questions from all the journalists just because of one media company,” and added, “Isn’t he trying to induce the journalists to oust MBC?”