AUDIENCE ATTITUDES TO CENSORSHIP OF CABLE TV PROGRAMS IN KOREA
Abstract
Cable TV programs have been broadcast in Korea since 1995. The
reason for this study is twofold. First, there are several studies of broadcasting
censorship and cable TV audience perception surveys in Korea but there
has been no audience study on cable TV censorship. Second, the present
trend of “consumer sovereignty” and deregulation in the broadcasting policy
is the current tendency throughout the world. Therefore, from the point
of view of broadcasting policy, the trend of reflecting audience opinion
is increasing and thus relevant.
This study gives an overview of the evolution of the cable TV
industry in Korea. This study also investigates how audience perception
of the freedom of the press and the access of media is related to audience
opinion on cable TV program regulation. Finally, the purpose of this study
is to devise the criterion and method of cable TV censorship suitable for
the Korean context.
1. Introduction
Cable TV programs were first broadcast in Korea in 1995. The
preparations for cable TV broadcasting, however, began in 1992. The
new cable television act and the presidential decree were enacted on July
1, 1992. The Ministry of Information (MOI) also determined cable TV program
providers in August of 1993 and selected cable system operators and network
providers in January 1994. Korean cable TV program providers began their
cable television services in the first half of 1995.
The economic potential of cable TV in Korea is enormous. Its
domestic market for cable-related facilities is expected to expand sharply
to about $2.1 billion per year by the year 2000 (The Korea Economic Journal,
March 12, 1991). According to Taeshin Economic Research Institute,
the domestic market could be between $2.8 billion to $3.1 billion per year
during the first five years of cable television service (The Electronic
Times , April 24, 1993, p.1).
The advent of cable TV broadcasting in Korea, however, has several
major problems. One of them is the deficiency of program provisions for
cable broadcasting. The government now appears to be moving in the right
direction by providing financial support and tax benefits for the promotion
of both the Korean movie and TV industries (The Korea Times, June 10, 1993,
p. 10). Unfortunately this goal of increased programming will not be achieved
within a short period of time. Unlike hardware or manufacturing technology
that is relatively culture-neutral, software production is culture-biased.
A movie or TV program combines technology, creativity, language, and other
cultural traditions (Han, 1994, p. 37). Nowadays, the Korean video marketplace
is dominated by foreign programs. For example, only five Korean-produced
films are included on the top 100 video rental list in 1993, compared to
90% of Hollywood films (The Korea Times, Dec. 11, 1993, p. 12). Seven major
U.S. companies comprise almost 70% of the Korean home video market. The
Korean market share of foreign films increased from 60.1% in 1983 to 81.5%
in 1992. Five major U.S. film distributors captured 23.6% of the 1992 film
market in Korea (Korean Cable Communications Commission, Nov. 1993, p.74.).
Counting all the possibilities, Hollywood is more likely than Korea to
fill the gap between the soon to be increased cable TV channels and fill
the increased demand (Han, 1994, p.39).
Because of the fast development of media and transportation,
citizens are living in a global culture. However, the growth of media technology,
especially hardware can give rise not only to cultural exchanges between
two or more countries, but also to cultural confusion or the cultural destruction
of one country. The advent of cable broadcasting in Korea will increase
the import of numerous foreign programs. Therefore, significant cultural
changes may occur in Korean society. Therefore, it is very useful to study
audience attitudes toward the censorship of cable TV programs in Korea.
2. The necessity of the study about audiences’ attitude to censorship
of cable TV programs in Korea
The reasons for this study are twofold. First, there are many
studies on cable TV in Korea. However, a theoretical discussion of cable
television consumer behavior has been virtually neglected, not only by
the research institutions but also by academics. A great deal of attention
has been paid to the studies from the providers’ perspectives. Among the
83 studies conducted between 1982 and 1989, for example, public policy
suggestions constituted 40%, followed by domestic trends and forecasts
(17%), technological trends (17%), foreign trends (16%) and others (11%)
(The Research Institute of Korean Press, 1990). The main focus of recent
studies still remains the service provider side rather than the user side.
There are several studies about broadcasting censorship and on cable TV
audience perception in Korea, but there are no audience studies on cable
censorship.
Second trend toward “consumer sovereignty” and deregulation of
broadcasting policy is the current global tendency. Therefore, from the
point of view of broadcasting policy, the trend of reflecting audience
opinion is increasing.
This study gives a brief overview of the evolution of the cable
TV industry in Korea. It also investigates how audience perception of the
freedom of the press and access to media is related to opinions on cable
program regulation. Finally, the purpose of this study is to devise the
criterion and a method of cable censorship suited to Korea.
3. Cable TV Demand Estimates in Korea
A government research institute projected that 39% of TV
households in Korea will subscribe to cable television by 1999, at a 10%
rate of annual increase from 1995 (The Electronic Times, June 1, 1993,
pp. 8-10.). Another research report provides more conservative projection:
4.4% during the first year of cable TV service and 25.3% by the fifth year
(The Electronic Times, Dec. 2, p. 5.). More conservative projections were
made by the Korea Research Institute of Management: 4.7% in 1995, and 31.3%
in 1999 at a $20.00 monthly subscription fee. The same report shows a much
higher diffusion rate in the first 54 service regions: 8.1% during the
first year of the service and 50.4% by the fifth year. Table 1 shows different,
but mostly optimistic, projections for the cable television diffusion rates
in Korea (Han, 1994, p. 42.).
Table 1. Projections for cable TV diffusion in Korea
(%)
Institute Methods 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
KISDI (1993) 1st case
2nd case
3rd case
4th case 2.40
13.5
5.0
8.0 3.20
14.1
10.0
9.5 4.00
14.9
15.0
12.5 4.80
15.7
20.0
15.5 6.40
16.5
25.0
18.5 6.60
19.8
30.0
21.5
KCTVC
(1993) the first 54 station
overall optimistic
overall pessimistic 27.0
12.6
3.0 33.0
18.3
6.7 42.0
20.9
11.3 50.0
32.3
13.4 56.0
38.0
16.3 -
-
-
KT 2000 Project 9.8 - 14.6
- 18.2 -
KIEP 10.0 17.4 24.6 30.5 36.1 -
KBDI Around 20% within 3 years of cablecasting
Source: Korea Telecom, Strategic Planning for KT’s Diversified Businesses
in Telecom Sector, Dec. 1993,p. 351; Korea Cable Communications Commission,
Five Year Development Strategy for Cable Television (1995-1996), Nov. 1993,
pp. 49-61.
4. Cable TV Program Provision in Korea
Cable television has been expected to enhance our quality of
life by providing a great deal of program diversity to meet sophisticated
and fragmented consumer needs. The multiple channel capacity of cable also
will promote the production of local news, community-oriented programs,
and eventually local culture. Therefore, cable system operators must self-produce
a maximum of 20% of the total broadcast hours (Presidential Degree, Article
15:2), a government channel for public purposes (Articles 22:2), and an
access channel for local news, a program guide, and public announcements
(Articles 22:3). The public access channel is assumed to accelerate the
realization of the marketplace of ideas (Han, 1994, p.40.).
MOI finalized its selection process in August 1993 by choosing
20 cable television program providers from a pool of 36 applicants (See
Table 2). As of July 1994, MOI is seeking additional program providers
for four new channels: Culture & Arts, Home Shopping, Manwha (Comics),
and Baduk(Go game) (MOI and Korea Cable Television Commission, July 1994.).
Program genres can be designated by MOI in order to avoid unnecessary concentration
on some popular types and to achieve programming diversity (Article 15).
These program providers must supply good quality cable programs at reasonable
and fair market prices (Han, 1994, p.26.).
Table 2. Cable TV Program Providers
Genre Num.
of Assigned Organization Major Stock Holder Number of Stock Holders
News 2 Yonhap TV News
Maekyung CATV Yonhap-Tongsin
The Economic Daily 12
26
Movies 2 Samsung Trading Taewoo Electronics Samsung Trading
Taewoo Electronics Single
Single
Sports 1 The Sports Promotion Corp. The Sports Promotion Corp. Single
Culture 2 Jeil Planning
Century TV Jeil Planning
Jiho Kim Single
6
Entertain-ment 2 Keumkang Planning
Jeil Video Keumkang Planning
Jeil Video Single
6+
Education 3 Tongah Publishing
Future Education
Korea Edu’nal Video Tongah Publishing
Current English
Hansam Publishing Single
17
14
Music 2 Modern Sound
Korea Music TV Modern Sound
Korea Music TV 5
4
Children 1 Eyeview Network Taekyo 7
Women 1 Tonga Mastervision Kongsan Hakwon Single
Travel 2 Traffic Safety
Promotion Corp. Traffic Safety
Promotion Corp. Single
Religion 2 Peace Broadcast
Buddhist CATV Catholic, Seoul
Buddhism Central Office Single
7+
Source: The Korea Times, September 1, 1993, p.2 and September 3, 1993,
p.3.
5. Cable TV program regulation in Korea
It is apparent that broadcast television and cable television
are viewed quite differently. In several respects, we find dissimilar characteristics
between cable and broadcast television (See Table 3).
Table 3. Dissimilar Characteristics of Cable and Broadcast Television
Cable
Broadcast
1. User needs to subscribe. 1. User need not subscribe.
2. User holds power to cancel subscriptions. 2. Users holds no power
to cancel. May complain to FCC, station, network or sponsor.
3. Limited advertising. 3. Extensive advertising.
4. Transmittal through wires. 4. Transmittal through public airways.
5. User receives signal on private cable. 5. User appropriates signal
from the public airwaves.
6. User pays a fee. 6. User does not pay a fee.
7. User receives preview of coming attractions. 7. User receives daily
and weekly listing in public press or commercial guides.
8. Distributor or distributee may add services and expanded spectrum
of signals or channels or choices. 8. Neither distributor nor distributee
may add services or signals or choices.
9. Wires are privately owned. 9. Airways are not privately owned but
are publicly controlled.
Source: Trauth, D.M. & Huffman, J.L. (1985) Obscenity and Cable
Television: A Regulatory Approach, The Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication p.9.)
Several researchers have pointed out that cable and broadcast
television have been regulated differently because they have dissimilar
characteristics. Han (1994, p. 52.) suggested that the establishment of
a comprehensive and politically powerful regulatory agency for cable TV
in Korea is necessary. The complexity of policy entities as well as the
lack of policy consistency have been attributed to the failure of cable
television to engage in development planning in the U.K, France, and Japan.
From a practical perspective, however, many areas of the new
Korean cable TV law need to be modified or changed. In an era of a global
economy and communications, a tough regulation of content no longer works
as it did when a government was able to control media content. The locus
of control of media content is more in the hands of consumers than in the
hands of regulators. Thus, the government must decide how much to loosen
the regulation of content, rather than tighten it. Because of strict regulations
or traditionally conservative ideology, more consumers turn to other media
sources such as video cassettes or Direct Broadcast Satellites (Han, 1994,
p. 54.).
Korea, moreover, has no experience regarding the evolution of
regulations in the cable television industry. At the same time, media
content will no longer be provided without requiring an extra expense and
extra time, as we are moving toward the ‘pay-per-society’ (Waterman, David,
1992, pp. 3-28). In other words, the locus of control has been shifting
from communication providers to communication consumers as the number of
electronic outlets has increasesed.
6. Comparison between Korean Broadcasting Articles and Korean
Cable Communication Articles
Hong (1994, pp. 59-61) compared the government’s Korean Broadcasting
Articles with the Korean Cable Communication Articles. His comparison was
based upon four categories: fairness, truth, sensationalism, and violence
(See Table 4). The Korean Cable Communication Articles are more concrete
than the Korean Broadcasting Articles. Hong recommended an examination
of audience attitudes toward censorship of cable TV programs because the
hegemony of control has been shifting from government to audiences.
Table 4. Korean Broadcasting Articles and Korean Cable Communication
Articles
Categories Korean Broadcasting Articles about the program censorship
Korean Cable Communication Articles about the program censorship
“Fairness” * Prohibition of distorted and unfair reports of the
truth
* Report of fair public opinion
* Fair report of political campaign
* Fair report of discussion program
* Prohibition of supporting special interest group * Prohibition
of distorted and unfair reports of the truth
* Report of fair public opinion
* Fair report of political campaign
* Fair report of discussion program
* Prohibition of abusing other Religions
“Truth” * Distinction between report and comment
* Prohibition of anonymous reports
* Identification of source in statistical reports
* Prohibition of criminals’ invasion of privacy
* Correction of a false report * Distinction between report and comment
* Prohibition of anonymous reports
* Identification of source in statistical reports
* Prohibition of criminals’ invasion of privacy
* Correction of a false report
* Precaution of confusion between imaginary news and news
“Sensationalism” * Prohibition of indecent expression
* Prohibition of obscene expression
* Prohibition of games raising a sexual urge
* Precaution in viewing drugs, alcohol, and tobacco * Prohibition of
the game raising a sex urge
* Precaution in viewing drugs, alcohol, and tobacco
* Prohibition of viewing sexual intercourse
* Prohibition of viewing sexual organs
* Precaution of viewing nudity and obscene dance
“Violence” * Prohibition of affirmative expression about murder, torture,
violence, kidnapping, and cruelty to children
* Prohibition of glorification of violent action
* Precaution of overexplanation of criminal methods * Precaution of
affirmative expression about family, women, children, and animal cruelty
* Precaution of affirmative expression about abortion
* Precaution in viewing firearms, knives, and killing methods
* Precaution in viewing amputation, hanging, and decapitation
Source: Hong, Gisun, (1993) The censorship criteria of Korea Cable
Television, Korea Cable Television Commission p. 60
7. Two frameworks for understanding the freedom of the media
(1) Libertarianism
Arguing against the absolute rights of the monarchy, 17th Century
English thinkers John Milton and John Locke argued that people are rational
beings who possess natural rights. Milton, in his 1644 publication, Areopagitica,
attacked censorship in England, arguing that only through open discussion
could truth be found. Milton’s “self-righting principle” assumed that truth
would prevail over falsehood in the free marketplace of ideas. Locke espoused
the rationale of a free press in his Two Treatise on Government arguing
against the divine right of monarchies and claiming that freedom was a
natural right of all people (Merrill, 1994, p. 45-47).
Milton and Locke had great influence on Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison who came to trust the rationality of the “common man,” and
believed ideas should be debated in public. They “rebelled against
prior censorship and felt that free criticism was essential to personal,
as well as national, happiness and grown (Merrill, 1990, p. 30).”
Under the libertarian theory of the press, the press functions
to help rational people find truth by presenting a multitude of voices.
The media operate outside the realm of government, free to criticize government
and other social institutions in order to further public discourse and
raise the level of debate. Beyond helping people discover truth and debate
the performance of government, the privately-owned media provide general
information of interest, entertainment, and a mechanism for generating
revenue and informing the public about commercial products (Siebert, 1963,
p. 7). The controls on the libertarian press are imposed by the open debate
of truth and falsehood in the marketplace of ideas, as well as the court
system, which prosecutes defamation, obscenity and wartime sedition (Severin
and Tankard, 1992, p. 288).
The media became a cause of concern in the 20th century as new
technologies- most notably television and high speed media- made the media
more pervasive. Early theories about media effects claimed the media was
a powerful tool, which if used in deceitful or propagandistic ways could
negate the libertarian views of human rationality and move individuals
and masses of people to perform irrational acts.
Further attacks on the libertarian ideals came from the media’s
consolidation of ownership. As technology made it easier to produce and
distribute newspapers, larger newspapers began buying out smaller papers,
and the number of voices in the marketplace was greatly diminished. With
fewer media outlets, there was a growing fear that the media were coming
to represent only those voices that media owners favored, while it was
becoming increasingly difficult for unpopular or non-mainstream ideas to
be expressed in the media (Severin and Tankard, 1992, p. 289).
(2) Social Responsibility
Some scholars claim the practice of social responsibility in
journalism is rooted in the 1947 Commission on Freedom of the Press (Hutchins
Commission) and the establishment of professional codes of ethics throughout
the 20th Century. Severin and Tankard (1992, p. 289) summarize the
theory with this comparison: “While the media inform, entertain, and sell
(as in the libertarian theory), they must also raise conflict to the plane
of discussion” (as in social responsibility theory). Under social responsibility
theory, the media are controlled by community opinion, consumer action,
professional ethics and government regulations.
The Hutchins Commission report condemned sensational journalism
for its “meaninglessness, flatness, distortion and the perpetuation of
misunderstanding (Altschull, 1990, p. 283).” Journalists must not just
report facts, the commission argued, they must disclose the truth about
the facts. The Hutchins Commission report proposed the press operate on
the assumption that democracy is successful only when citizens are informed,
and to work toward this end is to be responsible. The Commission urged
social responsibility in an anti-monopoly political climate that already
had imposed restrictions on much of the business community. The following
are the Commission’s criteria for measuring press performance. The press
should:
1. provide “ a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account
of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning;”
2. serve as “a forum for exchange of comment and criticism;”
3. present “a representative picture of the constituent groups
in society;”
4. be responsible for “the presentation and clarification of
the goals and values of the society;” and
5. provide “full access to the day’s intelligence (Peterson,
1963, p.87-92).”
Theodore Peterson (1963) argues that the first four are followed,
at least in principle, by most American publishers, but the last one marks
a break with traditional press theory. He says the idea of “full access”
is the basis for “freedom of information” and “the public’s right to know.”
The Commission’s report was ignored or attacked by most of the
press because it proposed government regulations and an independent agency
to monitor its performance. The government’s Federal Communications Commission
continued to regulate broadcasting, however, and its goals appeared to
parallel the Commission’s goals.
8. Research Questions
There are several studies of broadcasting censorship, and cable
TV audience perception surveys in Korea but there has been no audience
study about cable censorship. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to
devise the criteria and method of cable censorship suited to Korea. Research
questions for this study are as follows:
Q1. How is the audience’s opinion of the freedom of the press related
to their views on cable program regulation?
A. Is there any relationship between the audience’s opinion of the
freedom of the press and the audience’s views of cable program censorship
criteria?
B. Is there any relationship between the audience’s opinion of the
freedom of the press and the audience’s views on the cable program censorship
methods?
Q2. How is the audience’s access to media related to their views on
cable program regulation?
A. Is there any relationship between the audience’s access to media
and the audience’s opinion of cable program censorship criteria?
B. Is there any relationship between the audience’s access to media
and the audience’s opinion of cable program censorship methods?
The cable program censorship criteria were examined with the four
dimensions; truth, fairness, violence, and sensationalism. The methods
of cable program censorship were asked with the following four categories;
1. the method in which the nation’s censorship agency and audience agency
regulate simultaneously, 2. the method in which the nation’s censorship
system regulates, 3. the method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation
agency regulates, and 4. the method in which the broadcasting station regulates
itself . The audience accesses to media were categorized as the three levels;
the right of choice of TV channels , the reaction to unjust reports, and
the participation in debate programs. The motives of deregulation
on cable program censorship were asked with the three categories; 1. Cable
censorship deregulation for audience, 2. Cable censorship deregulation
for the increase of program channels, and 3. Cable censorship deregulation
for the commercial success of the cable.
9. Research Method
Survey research is the most common method to learn about the
audience’s attitudes. The methodology for this study involves survey research,
and the data was collected by personal interview. The respondents consisted
of a sample of 400 residents in Seoul, Korea. The sampling method of this
study is multistage cluster sampling (Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs 1994, p.
160). For this study, a survey was conducted on April, 28, 1996. The data
were using various statistical methods (Chi-square, Frequency, T-test,
Anova, Multiple Regression, and CHAID).
10. Findings and Analysis
A sample of 364 valid responses were produced. One hundred and
ninety-one respondents were male and the rest (173) were female. Respondents’
opinion on the freedom of the press was measured with seven-point semantic
differential item, anchored with the freedom of the press/the social responsibility
of the press. According to the survey, 210 of the 364 respondents had a
libertarian view and 145 respondents had a social-responsibility view.
Two hundred and sixty-one of the 364 respondents (71.7%) wanted less cable
TV program censorship more than they wanted less broadcasting censorship.103
respondents (28.3%) opposed the relaxation of cable TV program censorship.
In addition, 214 respondents agreed that cable TV censorship
criterion must be differentiated from the existing broadcasting censorship
criterion. According to four categories, opinions of strengthening censorship
criterion are ranked in the order of “violence,” “sensationalism,” “fairness,”
and “truth.”
Two-hundred and forty-five respondents (67.3%) answered that
deregulation will allow audience members to choose their favorite program
(See Table 5).
Table 5
The motive of deregulation on cable TV program censorship
1. Cable censorship deregulation for audiences
2. Cable censorship deregulation for the increase of program channels
3. Cable censorship deregulation for the commercial success of
the cable TV
4. No answer
Total
245(67.3%)
21(5.8%)
96(26.4%)
2(0.5%)
364(100%)
On the question of the method of cable program censorship, 171
respondents preferred a preference for regulation by the audiences’ autonomous
regulation agency. One hundred and fifty-six respondents preferred the
method in which the nation’s censorship agency and the audience agency
regulate simultaneously. Twenty-five respondents chose the method in which
the broadcasting station regulates, and 12 respondents chose the method
in which the nation’s censorship system regulates. In this study, two research
questions were investigated and their findings are as follows.
Research Question 1 is: How is the audience’s opinion of the freedom
of the press related to their views about cable program regulation ?
A. Is there any relationship between the audience’s opinion of the freedom
of the press and audience’s views on cable program censorship criteria
?
B. Is there any relationship between the audience’s opinion on the
freedom of the press and the audience’s views on the cable program censorship
methods ?
As a result of this study, it was found that the two groups; libertarian views and social responsibility views that had different opinions on the freedom of the press had different views on cable program censorship (See Table 6-a, 6-d, 6-e) and the respondents representing the libertarian view preferred deregulation of cable censorship criteria to regulation of cable censorship criteria (Mean = 3.2952). However, they did not preferred deregulation of cable censorship criteria to regulation of cable censorship criteria in the specific views on the criteria of “violence (Mean = 2.6905)” and “sensationalism (Mean = 2.9333).” The two groups with different opinions of the freedom of the press had no differences in views on the criteria of “truth” and “fairness” (See Table 6-b, Table 6-c).
Table 6-a. A difference of the two groups’ views on cable TV program censorship criteria
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
3.2952
.880
The social-responsibility view
154
2.9870
.990
( t = 3.07 d.f = 362 p = .002 < .05 )
Table 6-b. A difference of the two groups’ views on ‘Truth’
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
2.8905
1.590
The social-responsibility view
154
2.8636
1.500
( t = .16 d.f = 362 p = .871 > .05 )
Table 6-c. A difference of the two groups’ views on ‘Fairness’
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
2.7571
1.560
The social-responsibility view
154
2.7532
1.505
( t = .02 d.f = 362 p = .981 > .05 )
Table 6-d. A difference of the two groups’ views on ‘Violence’
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
2.2727
1.195
The social-responsibility view
154
2.6905
1.262
( t = 3.22 d.f = 362 p = .001 < .05 )
Table 6-e. A difference of the two groups’ views on ‘Sensationalism’
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
2.9333
1.350
The social-responsibility view
154
2.4221
1.257
( t = 3.72 d.f = 362 p = .000 < .05 )
Table 7. Audience opinion on the freedom of the press and cable program
censorship methods
Audience views
Cable program censorship methods
1. Libertarian view 2. Social responsibility
view
Total
1. The method in which the nation’s censorship agency and audience
agency regulate simultaneously
83 (53.2%)
* 90
73 (46.7%)
* 66
156
(100%)
2. The method in which the nation’s censorship system regulates 3 (25%)
* 6.9 9 (75%)
* 5.1 12
(100%)
3. The method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency
regulates 107 (62.5%)
* 98.7 64 (37.4%)
* 72.3 171
(100%)
4. The method in which the broadcast station regulates itself 17 (68%)
* 14.4 8 (32%)
* 10.6 25
(100%)
Total 210 154 364
* Expected Value
( chi-square = 9.29859 d.f = 3
Sig. = .02557)
As we can see in Table 7, respondents representing the libertarian
view also preferred regulation by the audiences’ autonomous regulation
agency or by the broadcasting station to government censorship. Respondents
representing the social-responsibility view preferred simultaneous regulation
by the nation’s censorship agency and audience agency or government censorship
to regulation by audiences’ autonomous regulation agency.
Research Question 2 is:.How is the audience’s access to media related
to their views about cable program regulation?
It was found that the two groups with different opinions of the freedom of the press had different reactions to unjust reports (See Table 8-b). However, the results showed that the two groups with different opinions of the freedom of the press shared the same views on the right of choice of TV channels, and the participation in debate programs (See Table 8-a, 8-c).
Table 8-a . A difference of the two groups’ views on the right of choice of TV channel
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
3.4714
1.068
The social-responsibility view
154
3.5779
.927
( t = -.99 d.f = 362 p = .321 > .05 )
Table 8-b . A difference of the two groups’ views on the reaction to unjust reports
The audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
The libertarian view
210
1.5476
.933
The social-responsibility view
154
1.8247
1.036
( t = -2.63 d.f = 362 p = .009 < .05 )
Table 8-c . A difference of the two groups’ views on the participation in debate programs
the audience opinion on the freedom of the press
N
Mean
S.D.
the libertarian view
210
2.9762
1.192
the social-responsibility view
154
3.1169
1.283
( t = -1.08 d.f = 362 p = .282 > .05 )
A. Is there any relationship between the audience’s access to media
and the audience’s views on cable program censorship criteria ?
B. Is there any relationship between the audience’s access of
media and the audience’s views on cable program censorship methods
?
As Table 9 in appendix indicates, a relationship between the audience’s access to media and the audience’s views on cable program censorship criteria was not found. That is, it was not shown that the audience’s access to media was directly connected to the audience’s views on cable censorship criteria. Respondents with active opinions about mass media access preferred regulation by the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency or simultaneous regulation by the nation’s censorship agency and the audience agency to regulation by the broadcasting station or by the nation’s censorship system (See Table 10-b, 10-c).
Table 10-b . The reaction to unjust reports
Audience access to media
2. The reaction to unjust reports
Cable program censorship methods
negative +---+---+---+---+ positive
1. The method in which the nation’s censorship agency and audience
agency regulate simultaneously
+-------*-------+-------+-------+
(2.03)
156
2. The method in which the nation’s censorship system regulates
+---*--+-------+-------+-------+
(1.58)
12
3. The method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency
regulates
+-------+--*---+-------+-------+
(2.43) 171
4. The method in which the broadcasting station regulates itself
+--*---+-------+-------+-------+
(1.52) 25
Total
+-------+*-----+-------+-------+
(2.16) 364
(F=4.918 Sig=.002 <.05)
Table 10-c . The participation in debate programs
Audience access to media 3. The participation in debate programs
Cable program censorship methods
negative +---+---+---+---+ positive
1. The method in which the nation’s censorship agency and audience
agency regulate simultaneously
+-------+-------+*------+-------+
(3.13)
156
2. The method in which the nation’s censorship system regulates
+-------+-------*--------+-------+
(3.00) 12
3. The method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency
regulates
+-------+-------+--*----+-------+
(3.43) 171
4. The method in which the broadcasting station regulates itself
+-------+-*-----+-------+-------+
(2.28) 25
Total
+-------+-------+-*-----+-------+
(3.21) 364
(F=7.121 Sig=.000 < .05)
11. Additional analysis
(1) Variables that have an influence on the audience’s opinions about
cable program censorship
Multiple regression was employed to determine the degree of causal relationship among variables. Table 11 shows that the libertarian view variable (Beta -.3808) and the social responsibility view variable (Beta .4102) have a strong direct effect on the audience’s opinions about the cable program censorship variable. Also, the libertarian view variable (Beta -.3808) has a negative causal relationship and the social responsibility view variable (Beta .4102) has a positive causal relationship toward audience opinions on cable TV program censorship. These relationship indicate that respondents who hold the libertarian view are likely to reject the regulation of the cable TV program censorship and respondents who hold the social responsibility view are likely to reject the deregulation of the cable TV program censorship.
<Table 11. Variables that have an influence on audience opinion on
cable program censorship>
Variables MR
R2 Beta F
Sig.
The libertarian view .42
.17 -.3808 25.4
.000
The social responsibility view
.52 .27 .4102
28.6 .000
(2) CHAID (CHi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector)
AID (Automatic Interaction Detection) was developed by the Survey
Research Center of Institute of Social Research in Michigan in 1964. Kass
(1980) developed this program and subsequantly he developed CHAID (Chi-squared
Automatic Interaction Detector). This program is very useful when questions
must be measured as the nominal levels because it can show the relationship
between the multivariate data which were measured as the nominal levels.
Table 12-a . Dependent variable - Audience opinion on the freedom of
the press
Total
57.69
364
Agreement of cable
Agreement of cable
censorship regulation
censorship deregulation
1
2
36.89 / 103
65.90 / 261
the disagreement that
the agreement that
cable censorship
criteria have to be differentiated cable
censorship criteria have to be differentiated
from the existing broadcasting
censorship criteria from the existing broadcasting
censorship criteria
1
2
25.33 / 75
67.86 / 28
1. the method in which the nation’s censorship
3. the method in which the audience
agency and audience agency regulate simultaneously
autonomous regulation agency regulates
2. the method in which the nation’s censorship
4. the method in which the broadcasting station
system regulates
regulates itself
1,2
3,4
15.38
47.83
52
23
cable censorship deregulation
cable censorship deregulation
to audience
to cable business
66.67
12.50
15
8
Table 12-a shows that when the audience’s opinion of the
freedom of the press is the dependent variable, the audience’s opinion
of the regulation of cable censorship is the most explainable variable.
Among 103 respondents who agreed the more regulation of cable censorship,
75 respondents disagreed that cable censorship criteria have to be differentiated
from the existing broadcasting censorship criteria. Fifty-two respondents
of these 75 respondents preferred the first method; the method in which
the nation’s censorship agency and audience agency regulate simultaneously
and second method; the method in which the nation’s censorship system regulates
for cable TV program censorship.
Table 12-b . Dependent variable - Audience opinion on cable program
censorship
the agreement for regulation
(cable program censorship)
Total
28.30
364
the disagreement that cable censorship
criteria
the agreement that
have to be differentiated from
cable censorship criteria have to be differentiated
the existing broadcasting censorship criteria
from the existing broadcasting censorship criteria
1
2
50.00 / 150
13.08 / 214
the libertarian
the social-
* the motive of deregulation
view
responsibility view on cable program
censorship
1
2
12
3
28.79
66.67
10.12
23.91
66
84
168
46
Male
Female
1
2
76.92
50.00
52
32
The motives of deregulation on cable program censorship were asked with the following three categories; 1. Cable censorship deregulation for audience, 2. Cable censorship deregulation for the increase of program channels, and 3. Cable censorship deregulation for the commercial success of the cable. Table 12-b shows that when the audience’s opinion of the cable program censorship was the dependent variable, the audience’s opinion of the differentiation between cable censorship criteria and the broadcasting censorship criteria is the most explainable variable. Among the 150 respondents, who disagreed that cable censorship criteria have to be differentiated from the existing broadcasting censorship criteria, 84 respondents held the social responsibility view. Fifty-two respondents among this 84 respondents were male.
Table 12 -c. Dependent variable - The motives of deregulation
on cable program censorship
<Cable censorship deregulation for audience>
Total
28.30
364
Agreement of cable
Agreement of cable
censorship regulation
censorship deregulation
1
2
59.22
70.50
103
261
The methods of cable program censorship
123
4
1
2
34
59.00 / 100
66.67 / 3 70.48 / 105
25.00 / 8
72.97 / 148
the disagreement that
the agreement that
cable censorship criteria have to be differentiated cable censorship
criteria have to be differentiated
from the
existing broadcasting censorship criteria from the existing broadcasting
censorship criteria
1
2
60.00 / 40
77.78 / 108
Female
Male
1
2
56.25
75.00
32
8
The methods of cable program censorship were asked with the
following four categories; 1. the method in which the nation’s censorship
agency and audience agency regulate simultaneously, 2. the method in which
the nation’s censorship system regulates,
3. the method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency
regulates, and 4. the method in which the broadcasting station regulates
itself . Table 12-c shows that when the audience’s opinion of the motives
of deregulation on cable program censorship was the dependent variable,
the audience’s opinion of the regulation of cable censorship is the most
explainable variable. Among the 261 respondents, who agreed to the deregulation
of cable censorship, 148 respondents preferred the third method; the method
in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency regulates, and fourth
method; the method in which the broadcasting station regulates itself
for cable censorship. One hundred and eight of these 148 respondents agreed
that cable censorship criteria have to be differentiated from the existing
broadcasting censorship criteria.
12. CONCLUSION
(1) Implications of the study
The purpose of this study was to find the criteria and method
of cable censorship suitable for Korea. Cable TV in Korea is still in the
beginning stages because it was first broadcast in 1995. Therefore, to
examine audience’s opinion about cable TV program censorship at this time
is very useful. Moreover, not only policymakers’ suggestions but also audience’s
opinions have significance to making the most appropriate and efficient
cable TV policies. This study revealed several important results.
First, the results of this study showed that audiences have a
positive attitude toward the relaxation of cable TV program censorship.
Two hundred and fourteen respondents agreed with the opinion that cable
TV censorship criterion has to be differentiated from the broadcasting
censorship criterion. Two hundred and sixty-one of 364 respondents (71.7%)
approved of relaxing cable TV program censorship compared with the existing
broadcasting censorship, and 103 respondents (28.3%) opposed the relaxation
of cable TV program censorship. In addition, 245 respondents (67.3%) answered
that the most important motive of cable TV censorship deregulation is for
audiences to choose their favorite program.
Second, the audience liked the autonomous regulations more than
the external controls on the cable program censorship. On the question
of the method of cable program censorship, 171 respondents had a preference
for the method in which the audience autonomous regulation agency regulates.
One hundred and fifty-six respondents preferred the method in which the
nation’s censorship agency and audiences’ agency regulate simultaneously.
Meanwhile, 25 respondents chose the method in which the broadcasting station
regulates, and 12 respondents chose the method in which the nation’s censorship
system regulates.
Third, the two groups --libertarian viewers and social responsibility
viewers--with different opinions on the freedom of the press had different
views on cable program censorship. Especially, the two groups --libertarian
viewers and social responsibility viewers-- had differences in views on
the criteria of “violence” and “sensationalism,” while both these
groups showed no differences in views on the criteria of “truth” and “fairness.”
This means that socially responsible viewers had the more conservative
opinion over libertarian viewers on the criteria of “violence” and “sensationalism.”
Fourth, even if the audience approved of relaxing cable TV program
censorship compared with the existing broadcasting censorship, they had
conservative views on the criteria of “violence” and “sensationalism” (See
Table 13-a in appendix).
Finally, according to the censorship criteria study of cable
program channel, most respondents approved the relaxation of censorship
criteria on cable channels except the children and religion channels (See
Table 13-b in appendix). As Table 13-c in the appendix indicates, regarding
the general and economic news channels, most respondents approved of the
regulation of the censorship criterion “fairness.” In the movie and
entertainment channels, most audiences preferred the regulation of “violence”
and “sensationalism” to the regulation of “truth” and “fairness (See Table
13-d in appendix).” As we can see in the censorship criteria of cable channels
in the appendix, the channel most preferred for deregulation was “the music
\art channels” and most respondents opposed the relaxation of censorship
criteria of “the children’s channels.”
Hong’s (1994) comparison (See Table 4) of the Korean Broadcasting
Articles with the Korean Cable Communication Articles indicates that the
Korean Cable Communication Articles are more conservative and stricter
than the Korean Broadcasting Articles. Nowadays, “consumer sovereignty”
and deregulation of broadcasting policy is the current global trend. Therefore,
the Korean Government has to reflect audience opinion and reexamine the
Korean Cable Communication Articles.
(2) Limitations and Suggestions
The major limitation of this study is that it does not reflect
geographically-diverse, probability-based samples and therefore, the researcher
lacks the ability to generalize the results. Any interpretation of these
results beyond the sampled population is problematic. To improve the external
and internal validity of future research, cable TV program user target
markets throughout Korea must be sampled instead of the residents in Seoul
alone. However, it is also true that the residents in Seoul represent one
of the major cable TV user samples in Korea because one fourth of the Korean
population are living in Seoul.
Appendix
Table 9
(N=364)
Audience access to media The right of choice of TV channels The reaction
to unjust reports The participation in debate programs
Cable censorship criteria negative: positive
negative: positive negative: positive
‘Truth’ r = .0118
r = -.0392 r = -.0093
Regulation: deregulation
(p=.471) (p=.228)
(p=.430)
‘Fairness’ r = .0390
r = -.0033
r = -.0041
Regulation: deregulation
(p=.229) (p=.475)
(p=.469)
‘Violence’ r = .0227
r = -.0231 r = -.0549
Regulation: deregulation
(p=.333) (p=.330)
(p=.148)
‘Sensationalism’ r = .0372
r = .0240 r
= -.0190
Regulation: deregulation
(p=.240) (p=.324)
(p=.359)
Table 10-a . The right of choice of TV channels
Audience access to media 1. The right of choice of TV
channels
Cable program censorship methods
negative +---+---+---+---+ positive
1. The method in which the nation’s censorship agency and audience
agency regulate simultaneously
+-------+-------+---*---+-------+
(3.50)
156
2. The method in which the nation’s censorship system regulates
+-------+-------+----*--+-------+
(3.58) 12
3. The method in which the audiences’ autonomous regulation agency
regulates
+-------+-------+---*---+-------+
(3.48) 171
4. The method in which the broadcasting station regulates itself
+-------+-------+-----*-+-------+
(3.84) 25
Total
+-------+-------+---*---+-------+
(3.52) 364
(F=.961 Sig=.411>.05)
Censorship criteria study of cable program channels
* The censorship criteria of cable channels
<Table 13-a . Audience opinion on cable program censorship>
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. ‘Truth’ (2.88)
2. ‘Fairness’ (2.76)
3. ‘Violence’ (2.51)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (2.72)
<Table 13-b. Audience opinion on censorship of cable channels>
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. General news (3.99)
2. Music / art (4.32
3. Movie (3.88)
4. Sports / leisure (3.97)
5. Entertainment (3.10)
6. Education (3.56)
7. Children (2.96)
8. Religion (2.96)
<Table 13-c . The general / economic channels>
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. ‘Truth’ (2.80)
2. ‘Fairness’ (2.69)
3. ‘Violence’ (2.70)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (2.76)
<Table 13-d . The movie / entertainment channels >
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulaiton 5
1. ‘Truth’ (3..46)
2. ‘Fairness’ (3.26)
3. ‘Violence’ (2.77)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (2.90)
<Table 13-e . The education channels>
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. ‘Truth’ (2.81)
2. ‘Fairness’ (2.82)
3. ‘Violence’ (2.23)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (2.27)
<Table 13-f . The music / art channels >
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. ‘Truth’ (3.60)
2. ‘Fairness’ (3.58)
3. ‘Violence’ (3.19)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (3.34)
<Table 13-g . The children channels>
Regulation
1
2
3
4 Deregulation 5
1. ‘Truth’ (2.75)
2. ‘Fairness’ (2.66)
3. ‘Violence’ (1.65)
4. ‘Sensationalism’ (1.70)
Bibliography
Altchull, H. From Milton to McLuhan, Longman, 1990, p.41.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R.,& Stone, C. (1984) Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, CA: Belmont.
“Constructing infrastructure for future B-ISDN,” The Electronic Times, June 1, 1993, pp.8-10.
Emerson, T.I. The System of Freedom of Expression (New York : Random House, 1971),p.3.
Emerson, T.I. ibid, p.3.; T.I.Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (New York: Random House, 1966)
“Four Leading Electronics Makers Vying for CATV Business.” The Korea Economic Journal, March 12, 1991
Fowler M.S.,Brenner D.L. “A Marketplace Approach To Broadcast Regulation”. Masscommunication Review Yearbook Vol.4, (1983).
Fowler M.S., “Broadcast Unregulation in the 1980’s”. Television Quarterly 19 (spring 1982) etc.
Fowler M.S. quoted in Porter V.(1989) “Re-regulation of television: pluralism, constitution and the free market in the USA. West Germany, France and the UK.” Media, Culture and Society, Vol.11.No.4 (1989) pp.5-27.
Fowler M.S. and Brenner D.L., Marketplace Approach to broadcast Regulation, 1982.
Francois, William E., Mass Media Law and Regulation (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986), pp.30-31.
Francois, William E., Mass Media Law and Regulation, 5th ed., Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1990, 551-553.
Garay, Ronald, Cable Television, New York, 1988, pp. 65-70.
Hinkle D.E., Wiersma .W, and Jurs S.G. (1994) Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, p.158.
“Hollywood monopolized video movie rental,” The Korea Times, Dec. 11,1993,p.12.
Hong, Gisun, (1993) The censorship criteria of Korea Cable Television,
Korea Cable Television Commission p. 60
Huntington, Samuel P., “The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the
Railroads, and the Public Interest.” Yale Law Journal, April 1952.
Humphrey, p., Negrine, R. & Simon, J.P.(EDS), Broadcasting and New Media Politics in Western Europe. London: Routledge pp.103-105.
“Introduction of CATV in Korea: Problems and solutions,” The Electronic Times, Dec. 2, p.5.
Jackson, B.B. (1983) Multivariate Data Analysis : An Introduction. Irwin IL: Homewood.
Jerome A. Barron, Freedom of the Press for Whom ? - The Right of Access to Mass Media (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1973).
Kass, g(1980) “An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities
of categorical data.” Applied Statistics, 29, 119-127. SPSS(1989)
SPSS/PC+ CHAID. SPSS INC., Chicago.
Korean Cable Communications Commission, The relationship between cable
television and other media and copyright , Nov. 1993, p. 16, p. 74.
Krugman, Dean M. et al. The Public Interest as Defined by FCC Policy Makers, Journal of Broadcasting 24/3 (summer 1980) pp.311-325.
“Let’s Foster SW Industry” The Electronic Times , April 24,1993,p.1.
“Let’s foster the SW industry” from April 24, 1993 to May 22. The Electronic Times, July 30, 1993, p. 1.
Louis L. Jaffe, “The Effective Limits of the Administrative Process: A Reevaluation”. Harvard Law Review, May 1954.
Milton, John, Areopagitika, ed. by John W.Hales (London: Oxford University Press, 1875).
Meiklejohn, Alexander , Political Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press 1965), pp.8-28.
Merill, John C, Legacy Wisdom: Great Thinkers and Journalism (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1994), 45-47.
Merill, John C, The Imperative of Freedom: A Philosophy of Journalistic Autonomy (New York: Random House, 1990), 30
MOI and Korea Cable Television Commission, Guideline of the application for program supply business, July 1994, Seoul, Korea.
O’Shaughnessy, William, Censorship and Public Interest, Public and Interest and the Business of Broadcasting, Quorum Books, New York, 1988. pp. 95-100.
Paglin, Max D. and Shor, Edgar, “Regulatory Agency Responses to the Development of Public Participation.” Public Administration Review (March/April 1977), PP.140-48.
Peterson, Teodore, “The Social Responsibility Theory of the Press,” in Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1963), 87-92.
Rivers, William L. & Schramm, Wilbur, Responsibility in Mass Communication, New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
Plamondon, Ann L. ‘Recent Development in Law of Access’ Journalism Quarterly, spring. 1986.
Porter, Gregory S. and Banks, Mark J., ‘Cable Public Forum. Journalism Quarterly. Vol. B.5. spring. 1988.
Rowland JR., W.D. & Tracey, M. (1990) World Challenges to Public
Service Broadcasting. Journal of Communication. 40 (2) PP.6-7.
Schubert, Glendon The Public Interest (Glence: Free Press, 1960)
;Richard E. Flathman, The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning
the Normative
Discourse of Politics (New York: Harper, 1966);Virginia Held,
The Public Interest and Private Interest (New York: Basic Books,
1970)
Scannell, Paddy, Public Service Broadcasting: The History of a Concept. Goodwin, A. & Whannel, G. (1990). Understanding Television London: Routledge p.
Severin, Werner J., and Tankard, James W., Communication Theories: Orgins, Methods and Uses in the Mass Media, 3d. ed. (New York: Longman, 1992), 285.
Siebert, Fred S., Peterson, Theodore, and Schramm, Wilbur, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1963), 7.13
The Research Institute of Korean Press (RIKP). Cable TV. Seoul, Korea, 1990; The Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI). A Study on the Diffusion of Interactive Cable TV.
The Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines, and Books (Chicago: The University of Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947).
“The status of movie industry changes from service business class to manufacturing business class,” The Korea Times, June 10 1993, p. 10.
Thompson, Margaret E., Chaffee, Steven H., and Oshagan, Hayg H..
“Regulating Pornography: A Public Dilemma. Journal of Communication
,Summer. 1990. pp. 73-83.
Trauth, D.M. & Huffman, J.L. (1985) Obscenity and Cable Television: A Regulatory Approach, The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication p.9.
Waterman, David ‘The Failure of Cultural Programming on Cable TV: An Economic Interpretation. Journal of Communication Summer. 1986.
Waterman, David. “Narrowcasting and broadcasting on non-broadcast media:
A program choice model,” Communication Research, 19/1, 1992, pp.3-28.