이글은 영국과 프랑스의 사례를 구체적으로 살펴봄으로써 한국 방송의 공정성 논란에 대해 바람직한 방향성을 모색, 제시하고자 하는 취지에서 기획되었다. 영국의 경우 실제적인 ‘치우치지않음’의 실현을 중시하는 불편부당성의 개념을 강조한다. 프랑스의 경우에는 조금 더 포괄적인 다원주의와 정직성의 이념, 그리고 이를 구체화한 준거원칙을 설정해 놓았다. 이들 사회에서는 이러한 원칙을 바탕으로 방송내용에 대해 일정한 법적, 제도적 규제를 실시하고 있다. 두 사회의 공통된 특징이라고 한다면 방송이 다양한 관점과 의견을 형평성 있게 전달할 것을 요구하고 있다는 점이다. 이 과정에서 공통규칙의 정립과 외부 규제기구의 개입은 정당화된다. 하지만 더욱 중요한 것은 이러한 외부기관의 감독활동이 제재보다는 사전협의와 조정에 초점이 맞추어진다는 것이다. 이는 언론자유의 기본권리와 불가피한 규제 사이에서 가급적 최적의 균형을 잡으려는 노력의 소산으로 여겨진다. 이를 위해 영국에서는 방송사의 자율규제가 강조되고 프랑스에서는 방송위원회가 방송사의 다원주의 원칙 준수를 감시하고 정보를 제공하는 데 중점을 둔다. 공정성 구현에 있어서 특히 공영채널은 영국과 프랑스에서 모두 중심적인 위치를 차지하고 있는 것으로 보인다. 종합적으로 보면, 영국과 프랑스는 모두 방송의 공정성 에 대한 나름대로의 사회적 합의를 가지고 있으며, 일정한 외부규제를 시행하고 있으면서도 최대한 자율규제를 통해 공정성을 실현해 나가려 하고 있다고 할 수 있다.

This study intends to search a desirable model for currant debates on fairness of Korean broadcast journalism through the cases of the UK and France. It is the concept of ‘impartiality’ in the UK which highlights on the journalistic performance of ‘being not biased’. More comprehensive concepts, ‘pluralism(pluralisme)’ and ‘honesty(honnêté)’, are set with concrete principles in France. Based on these principles, legal and institutional regulations are in effect in the UK and France. One common characteristics of these two societies is the request for broadcastings to deliver various views and opinions in equity and balance. In this process, the establishment of common rules and the involvement of external regulators are justified. However, it is important that supervising activities of regulators are more focused on prior arrangement and reconciliation rather than sanctions and punishment. This comes out from social efforts to find an optimal point of balance between the basic right of press freedom and inevitable regulation on it. In this process, self-regulation is emphasized in the UK whereas the supervision of pluralism and provision of information by CSA is more concentrated in France. Public service broadcastings seem to be positioned as core in the embodiment of fairness of broadcast journalism in both societies. In general, UK and France have their own social agreement on the concept and principles of ‘fair’ broadcast journalism, whatever they call or emphasize on, putting priorities on self-regulation than external regulations.

This study intends to search a desirable model for currant debates on fairness of Korean broadcast journalism through the cases of the UK and France. It is the concept of ‘impartiality’ in the UK which highlights on the journalistic performance of ‘being not biased’. More comprehensive concepts, ‘pluralism(pluralisme)’ and ‘honesty(honnêté)’, are set with concrete principles in France. Based on these principles, legal and institutional regulations are in effect in the UK and France. One common characteristics of these two societies is the request for broadcastings to deliver various views and opinions in equity and balance. In this process, the establishment of common rules and the involvement of external regulators are justified. However, it is important that supervising activities of regulators are more focused on prior arrangement and reconciliation rather than sanctions and punishment. This comes out from social efforts to find an optimal point of balance between the basic right of press freedom and inevitable regulation on it. In this process, self-regulation is emphasized in the UK whereas the supervision of pluralism and provision of information by CSA is more concentrated in France. Public service broadcastings seem to be positioned as core in the embodiment of fairness of broadcast journalism in both societies. In general, UK and France have their own social agreement on the concept and principles of ‘fair’ broadcast journalism, whatever they call or emphasize on, putting priorities on self-regulation than external regulations.

, , , , , ,

Fairness of Broadcast Journalism, Regulation, Impartiality, Pluralism(pluralisme), Honesty(honnêté), UK, France, Ofcom, CSA