잡지 『신동아』의 검열 사례 집계와 그 의의― 37~59호를 중심으로
Statistics on Censorship Cases for the Magazine 『Shindonga』 and its Meaning― Focusing on Issues 37 to 59
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
『신동아』의 검열 사례를 집계한다는 것은 『조선출판경찰월보』 같은 총독부 측의 검열 자료들이 얼마나 객관적인 사실에 근거하고 있는지를 점검할 수 있는 검증 자료 하나를 생성했다는 의미가 있다. 이제 『신동아』만큼은 『조선출판경찰월보』에 적힌 검 열 관련 숫자들의 신빙성을 주체적으로 판단할 수 있게 됐다는 것이다. 결론부터 말하 면, 『조선출판경찰월보』는 통계로서 정확하지도 않았고, 또 믿을 만하지도 않았다. 『신동아』는 통권 59호가 발행되는 동안 모두 370개의 기사가 검열에 저촉되었지만, 『조선출판경찰월보』는 그중 딱 3건에 대해서만 언급하고 있었다. 반영률이 1.2%(『중앙』은 ‘0%’이다)에 불과한 자료를 마치 객관적인 통계처럼 가져다 써서는 안 된다고 판단했다. 동시에 의아하기도 했다. 이 낮은 반영률은 신문사 발행 잡지 시대를 개척했고, 평 균 1만 부 이상을 판매했다는 『신동아』에 대한 총독부의 무관심 내지 부주의함을 드 러내기 때문이다. 우리의 미디어-검열사에서 『신동아』, 『중앙』, 『조광』은 매우 비중이 크고 이목을 끄는 존재이나, 총독부 측에서 보면 좀처럼 압수도 하지 않는 배려의 대상이자, 검열적 긴장도가 낮은 대상이었다. 총독부로서는 검열상 신문(『동아일보』) 이 중요했고, 『신동아』는 그에 딸린 부속물에 불과했음을 유추해 볼 수 있다. 하나의 순서쌍처럼 『동아일보』에 묶여서 판단되는 『신동아』의 위상은 우리가 생각했던 『신동아』의 모습과는 꽤 거리가 있다. 여기서도 검열하는 측의 판단과 검열당하는 측의 판단이 같지 않음을 알 수 있다. 그 연장선에서 『신동아』의 폐간 문제도 조금 다르게 생각할 여지가 있을 듯하다. 『신동아』가 ‘일장기말소사건의 여파’로 폐간됐다고 했을 때, 폐간당한 쪽으로는 행정 폭력이요, 미디어 連坐制라고 비판할 여지가 있음에도 너무 쉽게 받아들이는 듯해 보 이기 때문이다. 게다가 폐간을 명령한 쪽은 사유에 대해 아무런 설명이나 언급이 없 다. 『신동아』의 발행이 타협이자 거래였다고 생각하는 것이 억측이 아니라면, 그런 의 심이 견지되는 차원에서 그에 걸맞은 폐간 과정이 추론돼야 한다. 현재로서는 다른 해석을 이끌 만한 증거가 부족하다. 지속적인 고민과 연구가 도모돼야 한다.
Abstract
Compiling the censorship cases in “Shindonga” means creating a single verification material that can be used to check how objectively the censorship materials of the Government-General, such as “Chosun Publication Police Monthly” are based on facts. At least in “Shindonga” we can now subjectively judge the credibility of the censorship-related numbers in “Chosun Publication Police Monthly” To cut to the chase, “Chosun Publication Police Monthly” was neither statistically accurate nor trustworthy. During the 59 issues of “Shindonga” a total of 370 articles were subject to censorship, but “Chosun Publication Police Monthly” only mentioned three of them. I decided that I should not use data with a reflection rate of only 1.2% (“JoongAng” is ‘0’) as if it were objective statistical data. At the same time, I was also puzzled. This low reflection rate revealed the indifference or carelessness of the Governor-General toward “Shindonga”, which pioneered the era of newspaper-published magazines and sold an average of more than 10,000 copies. In the history of our media censorship, “Shindonga”, “Joongang”, and “Jogwang” were very important and eye-catching, but from the perspective of the Governor-General, they were objects of special privilege that were rarely confiscated and had low censorship tensions. This is because the newspaper (“DongaIlbo”) was important for censorship purposes, and In that extension, the issue of the closure of “Shindonga” may also be considered a little differently. When “Shindonga” was closed down as a result of the “aftermath of the Japanese flag erasure incident” the side that was closed down could criticize it as administrative violence and media suffrage, but it seems to be accepted too easily. Furthermore, the side that ordered the closure did not provide any explanation or mention of the reason. If it is not speculation to think that the publication of “Shindonga” was a compromise and a transaction, then the process of closure that is appropriate to the level of such suspicion should be inferred. As of now, there is insufficient evidence to lead to a different interpretation. Continued consideration and research should be sought. “Shindonga” was merely an appendage to it. The status of “Shindonga”, which is judged by being tied to “DongaIlbo” as a single order pair, is quite different from the image of “Shindonga” that we had in mind. Here too, we can see that the judgment of the censoring side and the judgment of the censored side are not the same. In that extension, the issue of the closure of “Shindonga” may also be considered a little differently. When “Shindonga” was closed down as a result of the “aftermath of the Japanese flag erasure incident” the side that was closed down could criticize it as administrative violence and media suffrage, but it seems to be accepted too easily. Furthermore, the side that ordered the closure did not provide any explanation or mention of the reason. If it is not speculation to think that the publication of “Shindonga” was a compromise and a transaction, then the process of closure that is appropriate to the level of such suspicion should be inferred. As of now, there is insufficient evidence to lead to a different interpretation. Continued consideration and research should be sought.