과학적 객관주의, 형식적 객관주의, 한국형 형식적 객관주의 - 신문 기사에 사용된 취재원 사용과 직접 인용 분석을 중심으로
한국언론학회 | 한국언론학회 | 31 pages| 2018.05.09| 파일형태 :
조회 1082 다운로드 0
자료요약
이 연구는 한국 신문 기사에 나타난 객관주의 관행을 해외 주요 언론과 비교하여 한국 기사의 품질을 평가하고 한국 언론의 현실을 진단하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 우선 객관주의 저널리즘이 무엇인지를 역사적으로 고찰해보고, 이에 따라 과학적 객관주의 ? 사회과학적 연구방법을 저널리즘의 관행에 적용하는 것 ?와 형식적 객관주의 ? 기자의 취재가 객관적으로 보이도록 하는 장치- 의 특징을 구분해 보았다. 이 연구에서 과학적 객관주의는 기사의 투명성으로, 형식적 객관주의 중 한국형 객관주의는 직접 인용과 관련된 세 가지 관행으로 각각 분석하였다. 또한 한국의 언론이 과학적 객관주의와 형식적 객관주의 중 어느 쪽에 가까운지를 점검하고 더 나아가 기자의 주관을 객관화하는 “한국형 형식적 객관주의 관행”이 어느 정도 수준에서 이뤄지고 있는지를 분석해보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 2016년 한국의 10대 일간지의 1면 기사 694건과 같은 기간 미국의 뉴욕타임스 72건, 그리고 영국의 더타임스 54건 등 총 820건의 기사를 내용분석한 결과, 국내 신문사의 1면 기사는 해외 유력지에 비해 과학적 객관주의 원칙은 제대로 준수하지 않았으며, “한국형 형식적 객관주의 관행”은 팽배한 것으로 나타났다. “한국형 형식적 객관주의 관행”은 해외 언론의 기사에서는 거의 나타나지 않아, 국제적 관행과는 크게 동떨어져있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 
 
The purpose of this study is to examine whether and to what extent Korean newspapers’ practices of objectivity differ from those of prestigious publications, such as the New York Times and The Times of London. Based on previous research about the history of objectivity in journalism, the current study distinguishes between scientific objectivity, which refers to the application of scientific research methods to journalism practices, as distinguished from formal objectivity, which is defined as devices that journalists use to emphasize efforts made to produce objectively obtained information, such as a neutral style of newswriting. In this study, scientific objectivity is operationalized as the transparent use of quotations or attributions while formal objectivity is measured by the use of three types of quotations: accusatory quotes from anonymous sources, subjective verbs of attribution, and use of direct quotes in headlines. A content analysis of 820 news stories published on the front pages of twelve newspapers, including ten Korean daily newspapers, showed that Korean newspapers are more likely to practice formal objectivity while the New York Times and The Times of London are more likely to practice scientific objectivity. Specifically, the average number of transparent sources used in each news story were found to be significantly fewer in Korean newspapers compared to their use in the New York Times and The Times: 2.55 in Korean newspapers, 8.43 in New York Times, 4.26 in The Times. By contrast, about 14% of news stories in Korean newspapers employed accusatory quotes from anonymous sources while there were no accusatory quotes from anonymous sources in New York Times articles. These findings suggest that routine practices related to journalistic objectivity in Korean newspapers differ significantly from what is regarded as the global standard of objectivity.
목차
The purpose of this study is to examine whether and to what extent Korean newspapers’ practices of objectivity differ from those of prestigious publications, such as the New York Times and The Times of London. Based on previous research about the history of objectivity in journalism, the current study distinguishes between scientific objectivity, which refers to the application of scientific research methods to journalism practices, as distinguished from formal objectivity, which is defined as devices that journalists use to emphasize efforts made to produce objectively obtained information, such as a neutral style of newswriting. In this study, scientific objectivity is operationalized as the transparent use of quotations or attributions while formal objectivity is measured by the use of three types of quotations: accusatory quotes from anonymous sources, subjective verbs of attribution, and use of direct quotes in headlines. A content analysis of 820 news stories published on the front pages of twelve newspapers, including ten Korean daily newspapers, showed that Korean newspapers are more likely to practice formal objectivity while the New York Times and The Times of London are more likely to practice scientific objectivity. Specifically, the average number of transparent sources used in each news story were found to be significantly fewer in Korean newspapers compared to their use in the New York Times and The Times: 2.55 in Korean newspapers, 8.43 in New York Times, 4.26 in The Times. By contrast, about 14% of news stories in Korean newspapers employed accusatory quotes from anonymous sources while there were no accusatory quotes from anonymous sources in New York Times articles. These findings suggest that routine practices related to journalistic objectivity in Korean newspapers differ significantly from what is regarded as the global standard of objectivity.
실증주의 객관주의 저널리즘 과학적 객관주의 형식적 객관주의 한국형 형식적 객관주의 Scientific Objectivity Formal Objectivity Korean Formal Objectivity News Sources
저작권 안내 및 사용범위와 규정
  • 위 정보 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재, 배포는 법적으로 "금지되어" 있습니다.
  • 저작권 침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁요소 발견시 하단의 “고객센터”를 이용해주세요.
  • 기타는 저작물의 등록자가 정하는 사용 범위와 규정에 준합니다.
  • 위 자료는 한국언론학회 가 저작권을 관리하고 있습니다.
자료 제공처