As generative artificial intelligence and automated content curation rapidly reshape the global media landscape, the intersection of algorithmic justice and media governance has become a critical frontier for sustainable development. This study provides a comparative communication policy analysis of China and South Korea, focusing explicitly on how their distinct regulatory toolkits address the tension between algorithmic fairness and platform accountability in AI journalism. While China utilizes a top-down, state-centric regulatory framework emphasizing ideological security, algorithmic registration, and strict synthetic media labeling, South Korea employs a multi-stakeholder co-regulation model driven by personal data protection, anti-monopoly platform intervention, and civil society oversight. Through a detailed textual analysis of key policy documents—including China's Provisions on the Administration of Algorithmic Recommendations and South Korea's Guidelines for AI Service Ethics to Protect Users—alongside empirical evidence from prominent algorithmic news curation platforms (Toutiao and Naver), this paper evaluates the implementation efficacy and structural trade-offs of each nation's approach. We demonstrate that while both models mitigate the risks of digital infodemics and algorithmic bias, they face contrasting trade-offs between regulatory efficiency and editorial independence. Finally, this study introduces the "Policy-Media-Society" (PMS) responsive governance framework, clarifying how systemic institutional adaptations can advance UN Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16) by ensuring public access to transparent, verified information.