적대적 매체 지각(hostile media perception)이란 뉴스 보도의 편향에 대한 지각을 의미하며, 특히 사회적 갈등 이슈에 대한 뉴스의 효과로 광범위하게 입증되어 왔다. 본 연구는 적대적 매체 지각 현상을 비뉴스 장르의 정치적 메시지인 텔레비전 후보자 토론회에 확장시키고자 한 시도이다. 이를 위해 서울, 대구, 광주 세 지역의 대학생들을 대상으로 17대 대통령 선거의 1차 합동 토론회에서 발췌한 영상물을 시청하게 한 후, 토론회 형식, 후보자 메시지 및 토론수행능력 등 다양한 토론회 구성 요소에 대한 유권자들의 지각을 측정하였다. 이러한 유사현장실험 결과, 첫째 토론회가 매우 균형 잡힌 형식을 취했음에도 불구하고 후보 선호도가 뚜렷한 사람들은 다른 후보보다 지지 후보에게 할당된 시간이 충분치 않았다고 인식하는 적대적 지각 편향을 보였다. 둘째, 후보자 메시지에 대해서는 부분적으로만 적대적 지각 현상이 발견되었다. 지지 후보에 대한 공격 메시지는 불리한 것으로, 상대 후보에 대한 공격은 유리한 것으로 지각한 반면, 지지 후보에 대한 공격을 상대 후보에 대한 공격보다 중요하지 않은 것으로 인식하는 편향을 보였다. 셋째, 후보의 토론수행능력에 대해서는 우호적 지각 편향이 관찰되었다. 즉, 특정 후보 지지자들은 상대 후보보다 지지 후보의 토론수행능력을 긍정적으로 인식하였다. 결론적으로, 후보자 개인의 메시지나 토론수행능력 등 매개되지 않은 직접 커뮤니케이션에 대해서는 적대적 지각이 발견되지 않거나 부분적으로만 관찰된 반면, 토론 형식 등 미디어가 매개하는 방식에 대해서는 뚜렷한 적대적 지각 편향이 나타났다.

The hostile media perception, the tendency for partisans to evaluate news reporting as unfavorable to their own points of view, has been robustly demonstrated regarding the news coverage of conflictual social issues. This study is an attempt to apply the phenomenon to the effects of televised candidate debates, one of most representative forms of mass-mediated non-news political messages. Using an excerpt of the first televised debates in the 17th presidential election as a stimulus, this study conducted a quasi field experiment of a total of 307 college students from Seoul, Taegu, and Kwangju and assessed the participants’ perceptions of three essential components of debates, such as candidates’ messages, their performance, and the format. Findings first indicate that, despite the strictly balanced format of the debates, participants with definite candidate preference showed a perceptual bias by answering that more time had been given to the most competent rival candidate than to their own candidate. Secondly, the hostile media effect was demonstrated regarding candidate messages, yet only very partially. Participants perceived the attacks toward their own candidates as disadvantageous for them, yet tended to underestimate the overall importance of those attacking messages. Third, participants showed a perceptual bias regarding candidates’ debating performance in a congenial, not hostile, direction. In conclusion, the hostile media perception was more salient regarding the format of debates than candidates’ messages or performance, relatively less-mediated components of televised debates.

The hostile media perception, the tendency for partisans to evaluate news reporting as unfavorable to their own points of view, has been robustly demonstrated regarding the news coverage of conflictual social issues. This study is an attempt to apply the phenomenon to the effects of televised candidate debates, one of most representative forms of mass-mediated non-news political messages. Using an excerpt of the first televised debates in the 17th presidential election as a stimulus, this study conducted a quasi field experiment of a total of 307 college students from Seoul, Taegu, and Kwangju and assessed the participants’ perceptions of three essential components of debates, such as candidates’ messages, their performance, and the format. Findings first indicate that, despite the strictly balanced format of the debates, participants with definite candidate preference showed a perceptual bias by answering that more time had been given to the most competent rival candidate than to their own candidate. Secondly, the hostile media effect was demonstrated regarding candidate messages, yet only very partially. Participants perceived the attacks toward their own candidates as disadvantageous for them, yet tended to underestimate the overall importance of those attacking messages. Third, participants showed a perceptual bias regarding candidates’ debating performance in a congenial, not hostile, direction. In conclusion, the hostile media perception was more salient regarding the format of debates than candidates’ messages or performance, relatively less-mediated components of televised debates.

debate format, candidate messages, debate performance