The SBS announced its official position on the 8th day after a controversy arising from the unlawful shelling of the king’s temple (July 29). Contrary to the seriousness of the controversy and the criticism, the SBS countermeasures were staggering and the contents of the official position were also poor. It consists of only three sentences? Apology was all. What was more frustrating than length was the content without sex. Could it not be that serious? Some viewers who were waiting for a sincere reply with the expectation of the end were disappointed enough to get the word “abolition” after seeing the official position.
It is apology that there is nothing to read, but let’s break off the sentence. First of all, ‘This is a jungle law. The lightness of the word ‘matter’ is too strong, even if it is different. It does not seem to be clear about the nature of the situation, but seems to be trying to rough it. I did not know what kind of mistake I was making. It was a result of SBS’s ten days of troubles.
SBS said it would conduct a thorough internal investigation at the apology. Is that a pleasure? But what did SBS do for ten days? I mean, I did not even do an internal investigation. Or does it mean I will take a look back because I did not do a thorough internal investigation. At this point, it should have been clearer and more accountable.
The apology of SBS was in the way that SBS treats viewers. Luckily, it was a sentence that said that the performer would not be harmed. The divergence (found on the press) that discovered and collected the king’s clams was criminalized by Thai authorities for alleged violations of the National Parks Act and the Wildlife Protection Act. You can get a maximum fine of up to 20,000 baht, a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, or both.
But is it reasonable to ask Lee Yi-eum to take responsibility for the extraction of the King’s shell? He was a performer of the Law of the Jungle, and his actions were for broadcasting only. In general, what happens in the shooting process takes place under the management of the production team. Moreover, it is more so in the case of overseas exploration programs like the Law of the Jungle. It is the ‘inspection’ whether or not it is the food which can be eaten or whether it is the object which can be collected (or hunted). So all responsibility is at the crew.
Most of all, it is confirmed that the production team did not know that the food of the king’s seashell is illegal at all. Even if the samurai were taken arbitrarily on the second string, and they ate with the performers at will, the responsibility still had to be asked to the crew. Nevertheless, for a while, Lee Yi-eun was at the center of the controversy with no defenses.
Why did he do this? No, it is difficult to explain that it is not easy. The expression of passivity seems more accurate. There have been many occasions for more aggressive action. How was ‘ten days’ given? It was obviously wrong, but we could solve the problem quickly and solve misunderstandings with viewers. Was it simply a matter of communication? What made SBS and the Jungle Law crew angry?
What is the doubt, the truth, of the extraction of the king ‘s clam?
Perhaps the “manipulation suspicions” that have been raised at the time of the war have limited their fate? On the 7th, a nurse who declared himself as a domestic diver, said, “It does not make sense that Lee Yi-sung comes out with a scuba diver as a freediving dive. Not only a freediver but also a scuba diver, “It’s hard to get on the ground, and the castle is diving, so it’s simple.”
The production crew had already prepared it in advance, and later produced a second sound. If this plausible argument is true, then this controversy will enter another phase. Beyond the illegal harvesting of the king’s clams, the <Jungle’s Law> program is a serious blow to the authenticity and credibility of the program. Jungle’s Law has already been subjected to similar manipulation controversy.
SBS said it would conduct a thorough internal investigation. Viewers want a clear answer. There are a lot of questions SBS has to answer to whether it is a simple mistake or not, whether it is a simple mistake, or whether it is illegal. The obvious fact is that the law of the jungle is at the crossroads of demise.