South Korean Media System: Toward a Democratization Model

Translated from the published article in Communication Theories vol. 6 (No.1): 144-190, 2010 with permission from the Korean Society for Journalism and Communication Studies.From a perspective of the media systems approach, we attempt to provide a media system model that accounts for the characteristics of the relationship between political and media systems in the democratization process of Korean society. Using the model, we explore the possibility by which media system has set the limit on the directions of political democratization. The notion of political parallelism is employed to characterize the historical changes of the role of the news media in function of public spheres in relation to political system. The Korean way of political parallelism accounts for the process by which mainstream newspapers and broadcasters have influenced political parties and civil society. The implications are discussed in terms of the role of media system in democratization

Whats Happening in the Jury Room? : Analyzing Shadow Jury Deliberations in Korea

This paper looked into the jury deliberation process by examining shadow jury deliberations in 18 actual cases between November 2010 and July 2011 in Korea. Based on the direct observation and the content analysis of the videotaped deliberation, we examined four key areas in jury deliberation in order to gain insights and implications for the institutional design of the jury system: (1) the binding effect of the jury verdict, (2) the number of jurors, (3) the jurors deliberations regarding both conviction and sentencing, and (4) the judges intervention in jury deliberation. The results demonstrate that the shadow jurors in general actively participated in the deliberation process by speaking in turn, and were respectful toward other jurors in debate. The jury forepersons positively played their role by giving jurors equal chance to talk and managed the discussion well. Misunderstanding of law and the intermingling of facts relevant to conviction or sentencing were not as frequent as many people expected: when such problems occurred, they were most often corrected through the intervention of other jurors or judges. Most judges were helpful in jurors reaching a verdict in the jury room. Also there was no definitive relationship between the size of the jury and the quality of deliberation. On the other hand, the shadow jurors tended to state their initial positions early in the deliberation process without fully discussing the issues first. They oftentimes made arguments not based on evidence. In addition, jurors emotions affected decision-making in some instances. Although encouraging aspects as well as areas for improvement coexist, the overall quality of jury deliberation in Korea, as evidenced by this study, is positive. Over time, the Korean jury system is expected to be firmly established as a robust institution to increase democratic participation of the lay people and to enhance the credibility of the judiciary.This article was supported by the 2011 Overseas Research Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences of Seoul National University granted to Professor Jisuk Wo

Auntie knows best? public broadcasters and current affairs knowledge

Public service broadcasters (PSBs) are a central part of national news media landscapes. In many countries, PSBs are the first choice of citizens when it comes to news providers. And in perhaps more countries still, PSBs are thought of as specialists in provision of hard news. We test this proposition here using survey data from a large crossnational survey involving indicators of current affairs knowledge and media consumption. Specifically, we examine whether exposure to public versus commercial news influences the knowledge citizens possess about current affairs, both domestically and internationally. We also test, using propensity score analysis, whether there is variation across PSBs in this regard. Results indicate that compared to commercial news, watching PSB has a net positive influence on knowledge of hard news, though not all PSBs are equally effective in contributing to knowledge acquisition. This knowledge gap between PSB and commercial news media consumption appears to be mitigated by factors such as de jure independence,proportion of public financing, and audience share

Why are “others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries.

This study tests the associations between news media use and perceived political polarization, conceptualized as citizens’ beliefs about partisan divides among major political parties. Relying on representative surveys in Canada, Colombia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Norway, United Kingdom and United States, we test whether perceived polarization is related to the use of television news, newspaper, radio news, and online news media. Data show that online news consumption is systematically and consistently related to perceived polarization, but not to attitude polarization, understood as individual attitude extremity. In contrast, the relationships between traditional media use and perceived and attitude polarization is mostly country dependent. An explanation of these findings based on exemplification is proposed and tested in an experimental design

Framing the health care reform campaign of 1993-1994: News frame, interpretation, and public opinion change

This dissertation investigates the nature of public opinion change in relation to the way in which the public interprets news coverage of a political issue. The primary questions are how news frames influence the way people interpret news coverage of a complex social issue and whether different interpretations of news coverage affect their opinions. To address these questions, a framing model of public opinion change is proposed. The central propositions of the framing model assert that (1) a campaign context provides the public with conditions under which campaign messages can be interpreted; (2) news stories are typically organized or \u27framed\u27 in a way that emphasizes a particular story line as more relevant than others; (3) the individual takes up the interpretive cues from news frames to contextualize their overall interpretation of a public issue; and (4) interpretation constrains the way political considerations are brought up to evaluate the issue in a way that selects relevant considerations, emphasizes particular semantic associations among the considerations and constructs a coherent representation of a situation. The framing model was evaluated in three related studies within the context of the 1994 health care reform debate. Study 1 revealed that, at the aggregate level, news frames influenced public opinion independent of the evaluative implications of news stories. Study 2 tested a two-sided information flow model of public opinion change: the individual\u27s attitude toward the Clinton plan was associated with the extent to which he or she received and accepted the dominant media messages, the anti-Clinton plan messages. Study 3 demonstrated that individual interpretations of the health care reform debate accounted for public opinion change over and above the baseline model tested in Study 2. Taken together, the findings suggest that as news frames provide the public with a relevant interpretation of a political issue, the public uses concepts associated with its overall interpretation of the issue to construct attitudinal responses. Public opinion change thus is considered an outcome of complex interplay among media frames, the public\u27s active engagement in interpretation of media messages, and the effects of interpretation on attitudes

Framing the health care reform campaign of 1993-1994: News frame, interpretation, and public opinion change

This dissertation investigates the nature of public opinion change in relation to the way in which the public interprets news coverage of a political issue. The primary questions are how news frames influence the way people interpret news coverage of a complex social issue and whether different interpretations of news coverage affect their opinions. To address these questions, a framing model of public opinion change is proposed. The central propositions of the framing model assert that (1) a campaign context provides the public with conditions under which campaign messages can be interpreted; (2) news stories are typically organized or \u27framed\u27 in a way that emphasizes a particular story line as more relevant than others; (3) the individual takes up the interpretive cues from news frames to contextualize their overall interpretation of a public issue; and (4) interpretation constrains the way political considerations are brought up to evaluate the issue in a way that selects relevant considerations, emphasizes particular semantic associations among the considerations and constructs a coherent representation of a situation. The framing model was evaluated in three related studies within the context of the 1994 health care reform debate. Study 1 revealed that, at the aggregate level, news frames influenced public opinion independent of the evaluative implications of news stories. Study 2 tested a two-sided information flow model of public opinion change: the individual\u27s attitude toward the Clinton plan was associated with the extent to which he or she received and accepted the dominant media messages, the anti-Clinton plan messages. Study 3 demonstrated that individual interpretations of the health care reform debate accounted for public opinion change over and above the baseline model tested in Study 2. Taken together, the findings suggest that as news frames provide the public with a relevant interpretation of a political issue, the public uses concepts associated with its overall interpretation of the issue to construct attitudinal responses. Public opinion change thus is considered an outcome of complex interplay among media frames, the public\u27s active engagement in interpretation of media messages, and the effects of interpretation on attitudes