Complaint filed over Do Kyung-wan's portrayal of extreme frugality on KBS2

A formal complaint has been submitted to review the objectivity of the May 22 broadcast of "Stars' Top Recipe at Fun-Staurant" after broadcaster Do Kyung-wan displayed a bank balance of 254,795 won despite owning a 12 billion won penthouse in Seoul.

The extreme frugal lifestyle revealed by broadcaster Do Kyung-wan on a variety program has sparked unexpected controversy. While his daily life—including a bank balance of 250,000 won and collecting toilet water to save on utility bills—was aired, viewers are reacting with mixed emotions as it was highlighted that he purchased a penthouse worth approximately 12 billion won with Jang Yoon-jeong. The situation has escalated to a formal complaint requesting a review of the program's objectivity and editing direction.

Complainant A recently submitted a request via e-People for a review of the May 22 broadcast of the KBS2 variety show "Stars' Top Recipe at Fun-Staurant." The complaint argues that the program should be examined to see if it maintained objectivity while covering Do Kyung-wan's economic situation and whether it risked providing viewers with an inaccurate impression of his actual financial status.

The controversy began with the money-saving methods Do Kyung-wan disclosed on the show. Mentioning stock market downturns and expenditures for traditional savings clubs, he revealed a bank balance of 254,795 won. After checking a utility bill, he expressed concern that the water bill had increased by 58,000 won compared to the previous month and explained that he instructs his children not to flush the toilet immediately but to collect water instead.

The intensity of his frugality did not stop there. Do Kyung-wan stated that even in the middle of summer, he keeps the living room air conditioner turned off, suggesting to his family that they stay cool in their individual rooms or live together in one space rather than bathing separately. As his detailed adjustments to his family's daily life to reduce living expenses were revealed, many online viewers responded with bewilderment rather than laughter or empathy.

Viewers particularly noted the real estate assets held by the couple, Do Kyung-wan and Jang Yoon-jeong. The pair drew attention for purchasing a penthouse at the luxury residential facility Aper Hangang in Seobinggo-dong, Yongsan District, Seoul, for approximately 12 billion won in 2024. At the time, it was reported that the purchase was made entirely in cash, highlighting their significant asset scale. As this fact resurfaced, critics questioned how viewers should perceive a broadcaster emphasizing bank balances and living expense burdens while possessing multi-billion won real estate.

Of course, the scale of investment assets such as real estate or stocks does not necessarily match the cash available for daily use. Even with significant assets, one can experience temporary cash shortages depending on tax payment periods or the liquidity of investments. In reality, it is difficult to conclude the couple's overall financial status based solely on the balance and frugal lifestyle mentioned by Do Kyung-wan on the broadcast. However, questions are being raised by viewers regarding the context in which the program delivered the economic hardships of a performer known to hold high-value assets.

The issue raised by Complainant A is not Do Kyung-wan's personal saving habits themselves, but rather the method by which the broadcast constructed and delivered them. The argument is that because the program sequentially showed the bank balance, investment losses, utility burdens, and the family's frugal lifestyle, it must be verified whether there was a possibility for viewers to misinterpret the performer's actual economic circumstances. Complainant A pointed out that even if the performer's statements are true, the impression received by viewers can change depending on the context and explanation.

Citing the principle of objectivity in Article 14 of the Regulations on Broadcasting Review, Complainant A argued that it must be examined whether the broadcast handled facts in an accurate and objective manner. Furthermore, the complainant emphasized that KBS, a public broadcaster funded by license fees, must fulfill its public responsibility and realize fairness and public interest in accordance with Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Broadcasting Act. However, it has only been confirmed that a complaint has been filed, and no determination has been made regarding whether the broadcast violated review regulations or will face sanctions.

The controversy has gained further attention as it was revealed that Do Kyung-wan also mentioned a lack of cash on YouTube. Appearing on the YouTube channel "SHW Everyday Watch Wearer," he stated that he sold a watch he owned secondhand this past May due to a lack of cash to pay taxes. At the time, he described himself as being in a "lean period," explaining that he faced significant tax expenditures in May and August, but was struggling economically due to a lack of work and poor YouTube revenue. He added that he had to control his spending because his funds were tied up in stocks.

He also mentioned that while his wife, Jang Yoon-jeong, bears the major costs related to their home, he felt he should at least pay for things like utility bills. According to Do Kyung-wan's explanation, there was indeed a gap between his real estate assets and his immediately available cash. However, viewer interest is shifting from the sincerity of his simple frugality to whether the broadcast delivered a balanced portrayal of the performer's economic situation. It remains to be seen whether this controversy will expand beyond personal preferences regarding consumption styles into an issue surrounding the objectivity and editing responsibility of public service variety programming.

Read the original (Korean)