지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Why do we regulate media? The answer to this question may vary and we may not be able to justify why one particular reason is better over the other. However it is uncontroversial that the media regulation is inevitable in order to protect media diversity and to better serve public interest.
Most commonly used legal measure intended to provide media diversity in media market has been placing ownership restriction. Korea also placed ownership limits on TV stations and had prohibited cross ownership of broadcasting and newspaper. Now that ban on cross ownership has been lifted through 'the controversial passage' of the Korean Broadcasting Law amendment bill by the ruling party. Putting aside the constitutional challenge of the passage, follow-up measures are being taken in order to meet the amended cross ownership restriction.
The ownership regulation, in general, directly contradicts with the economies of scale. And the effectiveness of ownership and cross ownership regulations has been a constant battle topic between those who want to promote public interest and those who argue free market and free competition.
This article is to argue that regardless of the changes in media environment, the ownership restriction is still needed for various reasons. The article demonstrates how media concentration has been increased after the 2006 media reform in Australia through which it relaxed its cross ownership restriction. How the diversity in media ownership logically leads to diversity in media outlets will also be explained in details. The article further suggests other legal mechanisms which may contribute in providing media diversity especially where cross ownership restriction has been relaxed.
Most commonly used legal measure intended to provide media diversity in media market has been placing ownership restriction. Korea also placed ownership limits on TV stations and had prohibited cross ownership of broadcasting and newspaper. Now that ban on cross ownership has been lifted through 'the controversial passage' of the Korean Broadcasting Law amendment bill by the ruling party. Putting aside the constitutional challenge of the passage, follow-up measures are being taken in order to meet the amended cross ownership restriction.
The ownership regulation, in general, directly contradicts with the economies of scale. And the effectiveness of ownership and cross ownership regulations has been a constant battle topic between those who want to promote public interest and those who argue free market and free competition.
This article is to argue that regardless of the changes in media environment, the ownership restriction is still needed for various reasons. The article demonstrates how media concentration has been increased after the 2006 media reform in Australia through which it relaxed its cross ownership restriction. How the diversity in media ownership logically leads to diversity in media outlets will also be explained in details. The article further suggests other legal mechanisms which may contribute in providing media diversity especially where cross ownership restriction has been relaxed.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 소유규제 완화와 ‘규모의 경제’
Ⅲ. 호주의 방송 소유규제
Ⅳ. 미디어다양성 규칙 : Media diversity rules
Ⅴ. 호주 미디어개혁법안의 시사점
Ⅵ. 결론 : 다양성 확보를 위한 정책 제안
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (12)
참고문헌 신청
1. [기타자료] - Armstrong, Mark / 1995 / Broadcasting Law and Policy in Australia
2. [단행본] - Butler, Des / 2007 / Australian Media Law / Lawbook Co
3. [기타자료] - Communications Law Centre / 2006 / Content, Consolidation and Clout
4. [단행본] - Cunningham, S. / 2002 / The Media and Communications in Australia / Allen and Unwin
5. [단행본] - Hitchens, Lesley / 2006 / Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity, A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation / Hart Publishing
2. [단행본] - Butler, Des / 2007 / Australian Media Law / Lawbook Co
3. [기타자료] - Communications Law Centre / 2006 / Content, Consolidation and Clout
4. [단행본] - Cunningham, S. / 2002 / The Media and Communications in Australia / Allen and Unwin
5. [단행본] - Hitchens, Lesley / 2006 / Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity, A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation / Hart Publishing
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미디어 교차소유의 정치경제학적 비판
한국언론정보학보
2009 .02
-
융합시대 미디어산업의 공익성과 소유규제 : 국내 종합일간지와 방송의 교차소유 문제를 중심으로
한국언론정보학보
2009 .05
-
방송통신 융합 시대의 신문방송 소유 겸영 규제 정책
방송통신연구
2008 .07
-
조세조약의 배당소득 과세에서 `낮은` 제한세율을 적용받기 위한 요건인 주식 `소유` 또는 `직접 소유`의 개념에 관하여 : 우리나라의 해석론
조세법연구
2015 .11
-
미디어산업의 선진화와 민주주의의 위기 : 한나라당의 미디어 관련 7개 법률 개정안 중 방송 소유 규제를 중심으로
언론과법
2008 .12
-
미국의 교차소유 논쟁이 한국 사회에 던지는 시사점
한국방송학보
2009 .05
-
Mind the interaction : The Impact of Family Ownership on Internationalization of Korean SMEs
한국경영학회 융합학술대회
2015 .08
-
미국의 매체규제 완화 논쟁
방송통신연구
2003 .07
-
유료방송에서 소유규제와 콘텐츠의 다양성 : 경제학적 분석
사이버커뮤니케이션학보
2006 .12
-
중국 물권법상의 소유권 제한
재산법연구
2009 .01
-
지배 구조가 기업 가치에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구
대한경영학회지
2001 .12
-
A Study on an improvement policy of ownership structure in broadcasting companies
언론과법
2003 .12
-
중국물권법상 소유권제도의 구조적 특징에 관한 일고
홍익법학
2010 .01
-
상호주판단의 기준시점 및 기준일제도와의 상호연관성 -대상판결 : 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2006다31269 판결 -
동북아법연구
2009 .01
-
미디어 다양성의 동태적 모델을 이용한 다양성 정책의 효과 검증 및 예측
한국언론학보
2013 .02
-
Diversity in media content : An agenda for diversity research in media industries
사회과학연구
2009 .06
-
The Effect of Ownership Concentration on R&D Decisions in Korean Firms
Seoul Journal of Economics
2012 .01
-
Internationalization, Ownership Structure, and Performance : An Empirical Study of Korean SMEs
한국경영학회 융합학술대회
2016 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-363-018846007