List of 'Politicians as May 18 Merit Recipients'? False Information Resurfaces

People Power Party Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook recently hosted a forum at the National Assembly titled "Revisiting the May 18 Democratization Movement." During the forum, claims were made describing the May 18 Democratization Movement as a "disturbance" or a "riot."

Lawmaker Lee explained the intent behind the event, stating, "May 18 must not become the exclusive property of any particular faction. Even if arguments differ from conventional wisdom or uncomfortable questions arise, the path to academic exploration should remain open."


However, immediately following the forum, a so-called "List of May 18 Persons of Merit" containing the names of politicians began circulating on social media once again. The list includes names such as the late former President Kim Dae-jung, former President Moon Jae-in, and Lawmaker Park Ji-won. The post garnered nearly 500,000 views.


This list, however, is not appearing for the first time. When the SBS Fact-Check Team conducted a Google image search, we confirmed that similar lists have been circulating since at least February 2019.

It is true that some politicians on the list have been officially recognized as May 18 persons of merit. The late former Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan is one such case. Former Prime Minister Lee was detained and imprisoned by the new military regime at the time, and he personally stated on multiple occasions that he was a person of merit. Former Democratic Party leader Han Hwa-gap also disclosed that he was a May 18 person of merit when running for the National Assembly in 2008.

However, other politicians on the list have consistently maintained that they are not May 18 persons of merit. Media outlets have repeatedly fact-checked this list in the past, and the verification results reached the same conclusion.

To be more certain, the SBS Fact-Check Team contacted the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs. The ministry stated, "Please understand that we cannot disclose specific details due to a court ruling keeping the list of persons of merit confidential," but added, "However, a significant number of the individuals on the list currently circulating are not May 18 persons of merit." This aligns with the findings of numerous media fact-checks conducted to date.

In December 2018, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that non-disclosure of the May 18 merit recipients list was justified, stating that withholding the names was not an exceptional measure. This ruling was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
 
This is not all. Various false claims regarding May 18 continue to spread on social media. The SBS Fact-Check Team has steadily verified information related to May 18, and most of these claims have already been proven to be untrue through prior verification.

Rather than fact-checking each one again, it seems more constructive to reshare our past fact-check reports.


In short, the list of merit recipients circulating on social media is not a "new allegation." It is information that has already been verified multiple times and proven false.

Ultimately, the key question we must ask is: "Why is it resurfacing now of all times?"


As mentioned earlier, February 2019 was the period when false information regarding the merit list began spreading in earnest. At that time, a "Public Hearing on Uncovering the Truth of May 18" was held at the National Assembly. Then-lawmakers Kim Jin-tae, Lee Jong-myeong, and Kim Soon-rye of the former Liberty Korea Party participated, sparking political and social controversy over remarks disparaging the May 18 Democratization Movement and claims of North Korean military involvement. Following this, a flood of false information, including rumors about May 18 merit recipients, emerged.

Now, six years later, false claims mirroring those from that period are spreading again. The common thread is that a "National Assembly forum" served as the "leverage" for the spread of disinformation.


People Power Party Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook explained that because May 18 cannot be a sacred sanctuary, diverse viewpoints need to be brought into the public arena for debate. From the standpoint of freedom of expression alone, this might seem like a plausible argument.

However, whether intended by Lawmaker Lee or not, pre-existing false information regarding May 18 took on new context and circulated once again through reinforced distribution channels. The mere presence of a public forum in the form of a "debate" at the National Assembly breathed new energy into false claims. False information emerging from an obscure corner of the internet is fundamentally different from being ignited within the National Assembly, the hall of public representation.

Empirical research showing that false information related to May 18 spread rapidly following the February 2019 National Assembly forum is worth noting.


A series of processes where already consumed false information "re-enters" the public sphere, gets "re-circulated," becomes "re-contextualized," and is then "re-debated."

Repetition can sometimes create truth. This is known as the "Illusory Truth Effect." It is a cognitive bias in which people come to believe information or claims to be true simply by encountering them repeatedly, regardless of whether they are factual. A related big data study was published this year in the world-renowned academic journal <Nature Communications>.


This implies that when pre-existing false information gains familiarity through opportunities of "public exposure," discerning falsehoods can become increasingly difficult. In the social media era, the danger of disinformation may lie not only in the "message" itself, but also in the "engine of repetition" that drives it.


While the SBS Fact-Check Team can clearly determine that the merit recipient list circulating on social media is "not true," this alone cannot fully explain the current phenomenon of disinformation spread.

The mechanism by which past false claims are resurrected simply by an influential figure opening the door to the public sphere forces us to return to a fundamental question: "What role should the public sphere play?"
 
(Writer: Kim Hyo-jin, Intern: Park Geun-ho)
 
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.