지역방송의 지역성에 대한 시청자들의 주관적 태도유형 및 상호지향성 연구

Abstract

The study examines local TV viewers’ subjective attitude type and co-orientation on locality of local broadcasting. Formal discussion on Locality of broadcasting is going back to the 1990s. In 1995, local commercial broadcasting and cable TV stations were established in the regions throughout the country. But, most of the locality study had been normative since 1995. That is why the study attempts to examine the meaning of locality from the perspectives of local viewers, as well as perceptual differences on locality between local TV viewers and broadcasters. The study would attempt to find out the values and directions of locality of the local broadcasting. In specific, the main research questions(RQ) of the study are as follows. RQ1: What are the local viewers’ subjective attitude type on locality of the local broadcasting? RQ2: What are the natures of the local viewers’ subjective attitude type on locality of the local broadcasting? RQ3: What are the similarities and differences among the local viewers’ subjective attitude type on locality of the local broadcasting? RQ4: How does‘agreement’on the locality of the local broadcasting between the local viewers and broadcasters show up? RQ5: How does‘congruence’on the locality of the local broadcasting between the local viewers and broadcasters show up? RQ6: How does‘accuracy’on the locality of the local broadcasting between the local viewers and broadcasters show up? The study has applied Q-Methodology to empirically test RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. The study also empirically tested the co-orientation model for RQ4, RQ5, and RQ6. First of all, 42 Q samples have been selected and then 44 P samples have been analyzed to examine the subjective attitude types of local viewers on local broadcasting. Analysis results provided five subjective attitude types. There were 14 people in the first type, 5 in the second type, 7 in the third type, 9 in the fourth type, and 9 in the fifth type. but there were few demographic differences on the characteristics of the type. Therefore, there have been found little correlations between the demographic of the viewers and the subjective attitude structure. The findings suggested that type 1 and type 4 correlation is the highest, and the correlation between type 2 and type 3 is the lowest. The first type(type1) ‘geographical differentiation orientation’, emphasizes locality which is based on traditional geographical and spatial characteristics such as the pursuit of universal regionalism, and strengthening community-wide criticism programs. The second type(type2), ‘sociocultural orientation’, emphasizes social and cultural regionalism such as the establishment of local community identity and the development of local culture. The third type(type3), ‘social community orientation’, focuses on local community standpoint among the neighboring community such as a joint venture between adjacent towns and their delivery of regional information. The fourth type(type4), ‘social criticism-surveillance orientation’, emphasizes the capability to strengthen the local community which is based on the identity of local governments and their residents, including community access and surveillance functions, and monitoring of local government. The fifth type(type5), ‘multiculture-minority orientation’, focuses on deep understanding of minority and multi-social class, such as developing a multi-cultural content on the part of local broadcasting. There have been found some differences among the subjective attitude types. There were big differences in the internal operations of the broadcasters between the first type and the second type, such as the recruitment of talented person and separation of their ownership and management. The first type and the third type showed a big difference in strengthening critical community programs and news reporting of significant local issues. The first type and the fourth type showed a huge difference in the statement that local news should report not only events reflecting the region's universal and special issues but also events happening in the local government and beats. The first type and the fifth type showed another difference in that local broadcasting should be programmed independently, lowering dependence on the national broadcasting. There were big differences between the second type and the third type both in the surveillance functions of local governments and promotion and development of local culture; the second type and the fourth type in both separation of their ownership and management and development of local culture; and the second type and the fifth type in both local residents’ rights and interests and production of program contents representing a multi-cultural community. In addition, The third type and the fourth type showed a big difference in the statement that local broadcasting should report news stories about people outside their area and have criticism and monitoring functions of local government affairs. There were differences between the third type and the fifth type both in strengthening critical/monitoring community programs and news reporting of significant local issues; and the fourth type and the fifth type in both surveillance functions of local media and strengthening broadcasting program planning and local media writers’ training. Regardless of the subjective attitude type, the p-samples agreed with 16 statements. However, based on Z= ±1, eight statements seemed to be found common characteristics between all types in the implementation of locality in the local broadcasting. The 8 statements commonly required in the local broadcasting are as follows: communication with local viewers; representation of local residents’ interests; helping common prosperity in the adjacent area; representation of the local community interests; representation of the minority interests; programming local contents; local community opinion formation; and local community solidarity. Co-orientation analysis also has been administered in order to find out the perceptions of local viewers and local broadcasters on locality in the local broadcasting, as well as their level of understandings toward each other. Online questionnaires were completed by 120 local viewers and 120 local broadcasters. Questionnaires items consisted of commonly agreed 16 items among all the types of respondents, which is based on Q-methodology. As a result of co-orientation analysis of ‘agreement’between local viewers and local broadcasters, there were significant perceptual differences in 7 items and not found significant perceptual differences in 9 items. No significantly perceptual difference items are as follows: representation of local viewers’ interests; delivery of local community-related information; delivery of news report about local community people and event; representation of local community lives; interactive communication among local community members; airing of local residents produced contents; cooperation among regional innovation groups; expansion of local community social capitals; and common prosperity between neighboring community. Local viewers’ perception have been found to be higher than local broadcasters in the 7 significantly perceptual difference items. It suggests that the local viewer's needs for locality seems far greater than local broadcaster’s needs. As a result of co-orientation analysis of ‘congruence1’on the part of local viewers, only 4 items have not been found significantly incongruent between the two groups among all the 16 items. That is, local viewers perceive that local broadcasters might have themselves similar perceptions on locality of local broadcasting. However, ‘agreement’ comparison suggested significant perceptual differences between the two groups. Similar perception items on the part of local viewers are as follows: delivery of news report about local community people and event; representation of local community lives; cooperation among regional innovation groups; and common prosperity between neighboring community. As a result of co-orientation analysis of ‘congruence2’on the part of local broadcasters, only 4 items have been found significantly congruent between the two groups among all the 16 items. Compared with local viewers, local broadcasters seemed to have a better perception on locality in the local broadcasting. As a result of co-orientation analysis of ‘accuracy1’, local broadcasters were found to read accurately perceptions of local viewers except 1 items—public opinion formation of local community. As a result of co-orientation analysis of ‘accuracy2’, however, local viewers could not seem to read accurately perceptions of local broadcasters.