Under the Lee Jae-myung administration, most cabinet meetings, major business reports, and policy meetings are broadcast live. It could be called a "live government." This is not merely a change in publicity methods but a shift in the scope of disclosure in state affairs. In the past, presidential opening remarks, ministry press releases, and after-the-fact briefings were the signals of policy. Now the meeting process itself is exposed. Ministers' reports and the president's reprimands and instructions are disclosed in real time, then clipped into short videos and spread.
Communication with the public is not unique to this administration. From the Kim Dae-jung administration's "Dialogue with the People" to the Park Geun-hye administration's "Marathon Debate on Regulatory Reform" to the Yoon Suk-yeol administration's "doorstepping," previous governments also attempted open communication. Most did not last long. Disclosure was refreshing, but unprepared words became controversies, and unrefined remarks became risks. Nevertheless, this trend will continue. The public wants to see not only results but also the process. In the era of social network services (SNS), YouTube, and short-form videos, they want to verify who asks and answers and what the government sees as the problem. Open communication has become a demand of the times. This trend even changes the way corporate risk operates.
Coupang's personal data breach led to discussions of fines and punitive damages at a cabinet meeting. SPC's repeated industrial accidents expanded into the president's site visit and the policy language of a "society where no one dies." The Starbucks controversy over disparaging the May 18 Gwangju Uprising went beyond consumer boycotts to government and political circles distancing themselves and suspending cooperation. The three cases differ in nature but share a common thread. The moment an individual incident takes the public stage, it transforms into a matter of industry practices and institutional reform. The crisis cannot be resolved by facts alone. The language of open meetings becomes simplistic, and video platforms pick out the most sensational scenes. A company's complex circumstances disappear in short clips, and the "irresponsible company" frame attaches first. The moment it is trapped in a frame, a company faces policy, reputation, and political risks all at once.
That is why monitoring alone is not enough. The key is not what was mentioned but reading how that mention will harden into policy language. Companies must prepare three things. First, they must organize issue-specific accountability structures with data. For industrial accidents, the prime contractor's responsibility and the management system for subcontractors; for personal data, the standards for notification and compensation; for pricing issues, an explanation of costs and market structure must be prepared. Numbers such as safety investment amounts, inspection frequency, and compensation processing rates replace explanations.
Second, companies must offer social alternatives before the government asks. Rebutting after one's name has been raised looks defensive. Voluntary regulation proposals, consumer protection measures, and subcontractor support plans must be presented first. Companies must show that what they want is not to evade regulation but a better solution.
Third, companies must maintain the language of political neutrality. Companies must speak in the public language of national safety, consumer protection, fair competition, and industry sustainability. When necessary, the CEO should step forward, but it must be decided in advance when to apologize, explain, and pledge institutional improvement.
Meeting disclosures will continue. It is difficult for any government to reduce communication with the public. However, disclosure does not automatically become good politics. If corporate issues are treated only as material for live politics, facts will be buried in frames and solutions will be swept up in partisan strife. What companies must do is provide social solutions, not political reactions. What the government must do is place companies in the position of responsibility, not politics. That is the path to maintaining trust in an age of constant scrutiny.
