Spring Break
Controversial Reform in South Korea
Natalie Kim '12
Issue date: 9/30/09 Section: Opinion
Though the three newspapers with the largest circulations, claiming 70% of national readership, are privately owned and lean conservative, network TV broadcast channels tend to be more nationalistic in outlook, friendlier to North Korea and critical of Japan and the US. Liberal analysts claim that the real agenda behind the passage of the Media Bills is to initiate a decline in the power of the major broadcast channels, as the more conservative-leaning large business corporations take over. It is claimed that although the students are taught objectivity and fair reporting in school, employers want to skew their reporting according to the goals of the respective media outlet.
Proponents of the bill celebrate it as a long-awaited end to the monopolizing of news outlets, seen as a vestige of the days of dictatorship in South Korea. Currently, the three main television broadcast channels-SBS, KBS, and MBC-hold over 80% of the entire media market in Korea. Conservative analysts claim labor unions in control of these channels have long held 'special and unfair' advantages, advocating radical labor laws unrepresentative of the majority of workers who are not in labor unions, resulting in special privileges for a minority of workers while resulting in wage cuts for the others.
The opposition lawmakers question the validity of arguments claiming positive economic outcomes from the media bills, claiming that the large conglomerates that dominate Korean industries would buy up most of the media properties. This may lead to increased monopolistic practices from businesses, not necessarily leading to increased quality of news. Though the removal of government regulatory agencies during privatization may make companies more efficient, the disappearance of bureaucracy would actually remove jobs, and amidst falling advertising revenue, it doesn't look like an alternative source of employment would be created anytime soon. The increased competition would only make the profit-minded conglomerates cut costs through personnel decreases.
Proponents of the bill celebrate it as a long-awaited end to the monopolizing of news outlets, seen as a vestige of the days of dictatorship in South Korea. Currently, the three main television broadcast channels-SBS, KBS, and MBC-hold over 80% of the entire media market in Korea. Conservative analysts claim labor unions in control of these channels have long held 'special and unfair' advantages, advocating radical labor laws unrepresentative of the majority of workers who are not in labor unions, resulting in special privileges for a minority of workers while resulting in wage cuts for the others.
The opposition lawmakers question the validity of arguments claiming positive economic outcomes from the media bills, claiming that the large conglomerates that dominate Korean industries would buy up most of the media properties. This may lead to increased monopolistic practices from businesses, not necessarily leading to increased quality of news. Though the removal of government regulatory agencies during privatization may make companies more efficient, the disappearance of bureaucracy would actually remove jobs, and amidst falling advertising revenue, it doesn't look like an alternative source of employment would be created anytime soon. The increased competition would only make the profit-minded conglomerates cut costs through personnel decreases.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
editing services
posted 5/25/10 @ 9:24 AM EST
Hm, I've read about that only today. Thank you, I didn't know that.
Post a Comment