언론시장의 공정경쟁을 위한 신문과 방송의 소유 및 시청률 산정에 따른 법적인 문제

Abstract

In this paper, I would like to point out the legal and real problems of collective regulation in order to prevent cross - ownership of broadcasting and newspapers under current law and to prevent media’s control over public opinion. The current law allows for the management of the bill through cross- ownership of newspapers and broadcasters. Through a revision to the broadcasting law in 2009, the company pushed for new media policies that would allow newspapers to operate broadcasting markets, especially integrated channels, to eliminate controversies and put emphasis on the media market’s industrial aspects. However, the holding business operators were regulated by adding up subscription rates for newspapers and the viewing share of broadcasting services along with the existing ownership regulations to prevent public opinion control due to single-forward. Although such combined regulations raises a controversy over the justification for the regulations, and about how they should be aggregated, they are judged to exist. However, since such combined regulations were enacted in the days when newspapers and broadcasting were more frequently used as media, it is questionable whether media usage patterns are relevant at this point. Consequently, in the current situation where media usage patterns have changed, combined regulations can not be made necessary to minimize public opinion control. It would be no big deal to prevent media outlets from dominating public opinion, as the existing regulations on ownership before the management of the school system and the regulation on the share of viewers were separately defined. To address this problem, it may rather increase the effectiveness of combined regulations by overlapping regulations with systems and procedures that ensure the internal multivoleness of media companies. In this regard, it is necessary to legislate for internal mechanisms and procedures for the independence of editorial, a classic argument that has traditionally been made for the independence of the media. Although a media company has the character of a private company, considering the social function of the media, it is eventually restricted by its limitations as a general legal hold on the social contribution of constitutional article 23 to the freedom of property or to vocational events. As the patterns of the use of diversified media environments and media is rapidly changing, it is time to revise the public opinion on the new media ecosystem, not confined to the method of collective regulation that has already passed over 10 years.