재협상에 관한 토론이 분분한 요즘, 미국인들이 한국의 광우병 사태를 어떻게 받아들이고 있을지 궁금해졌다.
여러가지 방법이 있겠지만, 여건이 허락하는 한도에서 나에게 가장 합리적인 방법은 신문 기사의 논조를 비교하는 것이라 생각했다.
NYT와 WP를 선택하였고, 이유는 다음과 같다.
World-Asia Pacific-Korea-South Korea-Mad Cow Disease의 긴 카테고리는 대다수의 미국인들에게 관심을 끌만한 주제가 아니다.
따라서 관련 기사를 갖는 신문이 많지 않다.
게다가 무료 계정으로 비교적 많은 기사를 열람할 수 있는 신문도 한정되어 있었다. 또 두 신문의 논조가 대비된다는 점도 한 몫했다.
NYT는 6월 11일자 기사인 Questions on U.S. Beef Remain를, WP는 6월 7일자 기사인 Meat-Counter Confusion in S. Korea를 분석했다.
-Boldic과 Italic는 주관적인 판단으로 강조가 필요하다고 생각한 부분에 직접 추가했다.
[WP]
Meat-Counter Confusion in S. Korea
Shoppers Struggle to Sort Out the Truth About Risks in Chicken and U.S. Beef
Protesters worried about mad cow disease march in Seoul against U.S. beef imports. After lifting a 41/2-year ban in April, President Lee Myung-bak reinstated restrictions Tuesday. (By Ahn Young-joon -- Associated Press)>NYT가 주로 평화적으로 촛불을 들고 있는 시민들을 원경에서 하이앵글로 담는 반면, WP는 '이명박OUT'등의 비교적 radical한 구호가 적힌 피켓을 든 시민들을 근경에서 로우앵글로 담는다.신문도 정치 참여자라는 입장에서 보았을때 정치적 의도가 개입되는 것은 당연하다.역시 사진은 권력을 빼고 논할 수 없다. By Blaine Harden Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 7, 2008; Page A09
SEOUL -- It's been a spooky spring in the beef-and-poultry aisle. South Korean shoppers have had to wrestle with risks real and rumored, domestic and imported, pathogenic and political. More than 6 million fowl were exterminated to halt a nationwide epidemic of bird flu. The cull included every single known chicken, duck and goose in greater Seoul. The strain of Asian bird flu that swept across South Korea, it turned out, was different from that found in Vietnam and Indonesia, which in rare cases jumps to humans and sometimes kills them. Risky or not, poultry consumption plunged. The chicken business here lost about $6 billion in two months. It nearly ground to a halt after a report that a South Korean soldier might have been infected with bird flu. He wasn't. Indeed, no humans were. >(실제로)위험하든 위험하지 않든--한국인의 닭고기 기피는 과학적 사실에 근거한 경계가 아닌 주술적 두려움이 원인이라고 은연중에 비판하고 있다.The head of the Korea Chicken Foodservice Association, Yoon Hong-geun, said the chicken trade has picked up smartly in the past couple of weeks, mostly because scary stories about chicken were elbowed out of the news by scary stories about beef. To keep current on beef, a conscientious shopper in this country needs a microbiology textbook, a political pollster and a scorecard. >한국에서 양심적인 상인이 되기위해선 현실적으로 이루기 어려운 조건들을 제시해, 은연중에 비양심적인 상인이 대다수임을 암시한다. In April, just before meeting with President Bush in Washington, newly elected President Lee Myung-bak lifted a 4 1/2 -year ban on the import of U.S. beef. He said it no longer posed a threat of infecting Koreans with mad cow disease. On Tuesday, after weeks of street protests, plunging poll numbers and panic in his party, Lee changed his mind and reimposed part of the ban. That, in turn, riled the United States. U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow tut-tutted Koreans for ill-informed fears and suggested that they "learn more about the science." >행간에 무수한 함정을 파놓은 FDA Final Rule이야말로 과학이라고 주장하는 양반이다. 신자유주의의 태반에서 자라 기업가의 편을 들어줄 수밖에 없는 과학이 과연 객관성과 중립성을 보장할 수 있을까?And that riled a great many South Koreans, who interpreted the ambassador's remarks as an insult to a society where students have for years been among the top achievers in international science testing, far ahead of the United States. Vershbow apologized Thursday, saying, "I have the highest regard for the educational level of Koreans and respect their concerns about food safety." >버시바우가 한국인의 분노때문에 입장을 바꿨을리는 없다. 따라서 위의 문장은 역설로 받아들이는 것이 옳을 것이다. 즉, 조롱이다.So, where does all this leave a homemaker who wants to feed her family? "I stopped buying chicken months ago," said Min Hoo-hwa, 37, who was shopping this week for her husband and 6-year-old daughter. "I would never, never buy American beef. I have stopped buying Australian beef. I buy only Korean beef, although it is more expensive." Expensive it is. >WP가 정부 정책을 옹호하는 경향이 있음이 여기서 증명되었다. 중립성을 유지하긴 커녕 정치적 의견을 피력하는데 주저함이없다. 아무것도 모르는 가정주부를 내세워 한국인의 미국 쇠고기에 대한 저항감이 비과학적이라 암시한다.At the meat counter of the E-Mart supermarket in central Seoul, Min paid $20 for slightly less than a pound of medium-quality sliced beef. That's about triple the price of imported Australian beef, which was on sale a few feet away. American beef, if it ever returns to grocery store shelves here, would be as cheap as or cheaper than Australian meat, experts say. >독자로선 확인할 길이 없는 '그들만의 전문가'의 말을 인용하고 있다. 실망스럽다. Before 2003, when the first case of mad cow disease in the United States was found in an aging Canadian-born dairy cow in Washington state, South Korea was the third-largest importer of U.S. beef. If Park Jung-mee, 53, a housewife with three children, has her way, American beef will never return to South Korea. She was buying chicken at the E-Mart, having read, she said, that a well-cooked chicken poses no threat to human beings. As for eating U.S. beef, Park was equally sure -- from watching South Korean television and talking to her neighbors -- that it is a very risky business. "I have heard that American farmers are feeding bits of cow meat to their cows -- eating their own species," she said. She had not heard that that practice has been banned in the United States since 1997 or that enforcement of the ban was tightened after the first mad cow case in 2003. Only two other U.S. cases have been reported since. >당장 NYT의 기사와 비교해보라. 이 문단을 전적으로 신뢰할 수는 없다.Park was also fuming about what she viewed as the bad behavior of the U.S. ambassador. "I am angry at him for telling Koreans not to worry," she said. When it comes to beef, Park said, Korean is clearly safest and most delicious.>물론 한우를 의미한다."It's softer and it melts in your mouth," she said. But she wasn't buying any and her family doesn't eat much beef anymore. "Too expensive," she explained. >미국인들은 관심없은 한국의 광우병 사태에 대해 관심이 적을 것이다. 하물며 기사에 실린 누군지도 모를 한국인과의 인터뷰가 사실인지 확인할 사람은 아무도 없을 것이다. 한국인 역시 마찬가지이다. WP의 한국인 주부와의 인터뷰가 진실인지 어떻게 확인하겠는가? 요점은 WP가 인터뷰 내용을 자의적으로 편집해도 문제가 되지 않는 상황이라는 것이다.Not everyone in the E-Mart was happy not to be able to buy U.S. beef. >FDA Final Rule의 말장난을 보는 듯하다. "This whole issue is not about food killing you," said Young Sook, 51, a housewife who said she studied microbiology in college. "It's about politics. It's about people who are angry at President Lee for arbitrarily deciding to lift the beef ban without consulting the public." >한국인의 입을 통해 한국 대중들의 시위는 본질이 왜곡되었다고 하다니, 이 얼마나 설득력있는 편집이란 말인가? 얼마나 많은 한국에 관심이 덜할 수밖에 없는 미국인들이 이 문구를 그대로 받아들일 것인가?She said she ate U.S. beef before the ban and would eat it again -- if it ever returns. >언론 본유의 가치인 중립성은 자본의 논리와 함께 죽었다. "I have lived in the States," she said. "I don't think the American government is stupid enough to sell food that will kill you." >저 I는 WP로 치환해도 아무런 문제가 없다. Finding Korean beef to be overpriced, she bought chicken. >…왜 AI와 광우병 문제를 같이 다루었는지 고민했었는데, 여기서 그 의문이 풀렸다. "I have never stopped buying chicken, bird flu or not," she said. "It is safe if you cook it." >얼마나 많은 미국인들이 이 문장을 읽고 한국인이 우둔하다고 생각할 것인가.
[NYT]
Questions on U.S. Beef Remain
Published: June 11, 2008
About 50 countries, including Korea, Taiwan and Japan the last of which accounted for 36 percent of American beef exports closed their doors to American beef after the first confirmed case of mad cow disease was found in Moses Lake, Wash., in December 2003.
The circumstances of that first case, and the defensive reactions of the United States Department of Agriculture after its discovery, led to years of skepticism by American consumer groups and difficult negotiations with foreign countries over reopening their markets -- especially in Asia’s wealthier countries, where consumers are used to demanding that their governments certify that imported food is safe.
>USDA에 대한 비판이 엿보인다.
Although the first infected cow was probably not a “downer” -- too diseased or crippled to walk -- it was part of a shipment of broken-down old dairy cows, and it became clear from press reports that some small slaughterhouses specialized in taking such borderline animals, which often had to be hoisted or winched out of their trucks on chains.
>Humane에 의한 도축장 비밀촬영을 암시하는 것 같다.
Also, by the time the test results came back two weeks after the cow was killed, it had already been ground into hamburger, mixed with 10,000 pounds of meat from other animals and shipped to supermarkets. Despite a multi-state recall, experts conceded that much had undoubtedly been cooked and eaten. The cow’s spinal cord -- likely to contain the most infectious material -- had been sent to a plant that made food for pets and pigs.
>정부의 광우병 대책을 신뢰하는 WP와 논조가 대비된다.
In the wake of the first case, the Agriculture Department issued assurances that American beef was safe. Although most Americans did not stop buying beef, foreign customers were openly skeptical, for several reasons.
The chief one was that the United States was testing only a tiny fraction of the 30 million animals it slaughtered each year. In 1997, the year it banned feeding ruminant protein to other ruminants because of the suspicions about the disease in Europe, it tested only 219 animals. In 2003, when the first positive was found, it was testing about 20,000 a year.
>전수검사를 실시하는 일본에 비해 표본조사뿐이었던 USDA에 대한 비판이다.
At the time, European countries were testing 10 million animals annually, and the Japanese were testing every one of the 1.2 million they slaughtered. (Dr. Ron DeHaven, then the Agriculture Department’s chief veterinarian, publicly mocked that standard, comparing it to a doctor testing every patient, regardless of age or sex, for prostate cancer.)
>유럽과 일본에 비해 미국의 표본조사는 빈약했다고 비판한다.
Even after the first case was found, the department initially resisted increased its testing, and then raised it to only about 40,000 animals a year.
Department officials explained that their testing was only for surveillance, not food safety. The sampling was designed to give 95 percent certainty of finding the disease if it existed in one in a million cattle which is the rate that would be expected from spontaneous genetic mutations, such as those found in humans with the degenerative brain disease known as Creutzfeld-Jakob syndrome.
There were other suspicions about its motives. Many other countries have food safety agencies that are separate from their agriculture departments, which exist primarily to help farmers and increase farm sales. In the United States, however, the Agriculture Department, not the Food and Drug Administration, certifies meat as safe.
>표본검사를 식품의약청이 아닌 농림부가 수행하는 것이 수상하다.
The secretary of agriculture at the time, Ann M. Veneman, was a former food industry lobbyist and her spokeswoman had previously been the chief spokeswoman for the beef lobby.
>당시 농림부 장관은 로비스트였다고 한다. 슬슬 가닥이 잡혀간다.
The department initially took some more measures to increase safety and reassure customers.
It approved rapid tests that could give results on carcasses while they were still in the slaughterhouse. (Carcasses are usually chilled for 24 hours after slaughter to make them easier to cut up.) It banned downer cattle from the food supply.
And in early 2004, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to ban feeding cow blood, waste from chicken coop floors and plate waste from restaurants to cattle. Blood had been in formula fed to calves as a substitute for milk, chicken feed could contain rendered beef protein, and restaurant waste, of course, included beef.
But some Agriculture Department decisions were not reassuring.
Under political pressure, the F.D.A. bans on cow blood, chicken dung and plate waste were never implemented.
>로비에 의해 FDA의 규제는 실질적인 실행력이 없었다.
In early 2004, the Agriculture Department denied a Kansas beef producer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, permission to test all of its cows so it could again ship beef to customers in Japan, which had agreed to accept tested cows. The company complained that it was losing $40,000 a day and had had to lay off 50 employees while it could not export to Japan.
The department refused, saying such testing would “imply a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.” American consumer groups were apoplectic, but the beef industry which did not want to be pressured to spend $25 or so testing every animal applauded the move. Creekstone is still suing the Agriculture Department for the right to test.
>is still suing는 기사가 쓰여진 2008년까지 정부에 대한 Beef industry들의 로비가 끊이지 않음을 암시한다.
Then, in mid-2005, when the second case of mad cow disease was confirmed in the U.S., it was revealed that the Agriculture Department had concealed for seven months the fact that one of the tests it had performed on the sample had been positive. The test similar to one used in other countries had been ruled “experimental” and not reported.
Finally, bending to pressure from consumer groups and from its own inspector general, which had called its testing seriously flawed, the Agriculture Department tested 650,000 animals in 2005 and 2006 about one out of every 90 slaughtered.
Ultimately, only three confirmed positive animals were found, suggesting that the disease, if it was present at all in the American beef supply, was at very low levels possibly at one time in older animals born before the feed ban, or in a few animals who developed spontaneous cases.
Tokyo lifted the ban on American beef in late 2005, after a food safety commission ruled that American safety measures were now adequate, but reinstated it less than a month later after Japanese inspectors found backbone in imported veal. Japan lifted the ban again in July 2006.
Overall, fears about the issue began to fade.
However, in February, an animal rights group, the Humane Society of the United States, released videotapes it had taken at animal auctions showing downer cows being shocked, prodded with forklifts and blasted with hoses to force them into standing long enough so they could be certified for slaughter — again raising questions about how rigorously the Agriculture Department enforces food-safety rules.
>'Downer'를 고문을 통해 강제로 일으켜 도축 허가를 받아내는 현장이 비디로로 찍혔다.
***NYT에선 Humane의 폭로를 기사 내용에 포함하며 광우병 문제를 은폐하려는 정부를 비판했지만,
WP에선 오히려 자국 정부를 신용하지 못하는 한국인이 우둔하다는 암시를 하고 있다.
NYT나 WP 모두 사주가 있고 대기업의 광고를 받는 입장이므로 뚜렷한 정치적 입장을 가지지 않을 수야 없겠지만,
Lee Hak Youn의 N이 Lee Hak Youn의 일부이므로 N이 곧 Lee Hak Youn인 것처럼 왜곡 보도하는 WP의 행태는 문제삼지 않을 수 없겠다.
***진보와 보수를 떠나 국내 언론이 '선'과 '악'의 이분법으로 양분되는 것 같아 우려스럽다.
물론 왜곡 보도의 전과로 얼룩진 채로 공신력 있는 언론의 자격을 논할 수는 없다. 그러나 전문가가 아닌 이상 일반인이 취할 수 있는 정보의 원천은 언론 뿐일 것이다. 만약 선과 악의 이분법이 권선징악의 논리로 비약하여, 사태의 넓은 스펙트럼을 조망하는데 장애가 된다면 필히 경계해야 하겠다.
NYT와 WP의 상반된 논조는 한국인으로서 감정을 완전히 배제하고 받아 들이긴 어렵다. 그러나 진정한 지식인이라면 가치핀단을 초월하여 기사의 이면에 숨은 진실을 꿰뚫어 보는 소양이 준비되어야 할 것이다.
