2008년 초 정권교체 시점의 방송통신 정책기구 개편을 둘러싼 논의의 혼선과 쟁점들

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate a debate on the reformation of Korea's broadcasting and telecommunication policy organizations in the wake of media convergence. Recently, the Presidential Transition Committee ended this ongoing debate, proposing to establish one single government agency that integrates broadcasting policy implemented by the Korean Broadcasting Commission and telecommunication policy implemented by the Ministry of Information and Communication. The author argues that the basic directions of the Committee's decision is valid, still its hasty, closed and undemocratic decision making procedure leaves large room for political backfire. The major reason why its decision is valid despite the procedural problems is because it overcomes the limitations of so-called mechanical administrative approach pervasive among the past debates on the reformation of broadcasting and telecommunication policy organizations. From a microscopic and shortsighted perspective, existing debates have focused mainly on re-engineering of broadcasting and communication regulation without recognizing the true meaning of social communication policy with few references to the fundamental meaning of social communication policy. The status, role, and function of a new communication policy entity should come from a macroscopic and long-term standpoint. First, as for its status, a new entity should act as a comprehensive communication policy organization encompassing media and communication policies at all levels. Institutional separation of a governmental ministry in charge of industrial policies and a commission in charge of socio-cultural regulation policies is hard to realize this macroscopic vision. The Presidential Transition Committee's proposal comes closer at building an integrated media and communication policy organization. Second, the vital role of the new communication policy organization in the media convergence era is to accomplish balance and harmony between media's public goals and market efficiency at the same time. The separation of industrial policy and socio-cultural regulation is an anachronistic approach to follow existing communication policy mechanism that differentiates broadcasting policy (social and cultural policy paradigm) and telecommunication policy (industrial policy paradigm). The Presidential Transition Committee's proposal for a single broadcasting and telecommunication organization that accomplishes its policy goal of improving public value and market efficiency within one organization appears valid in this vein. The Presidential Transition Committee's approach, however, lacks procedural rationality. Not a few people see its hasty, closed and undemocratic decision making procedure as a new government's attempt to control media and communication polices and even as a threat to the very roots of a democratic civil society. Procedural problems can not only fuel people's suspicion or mistrust of a new government's media policy but also cause a problem of well-directed plausible policies to drift away. In media policy, the new Korean government needs to take more cautious consideration of procedural rationality as well as the substance of policy itself.