현재 한국의 방송, 특히 공영방송인 KBS는 여느 정권보다도 더 유례를 찾을 수 없을 정도의 파행을 통한 혼란을 겪고 있다. 방송사의 책임자와 정부의 입장에서는 조직 내부의 문제이기 때문에 그 심각성을 애써 외면하려 하고 있고 일부 대형 신문사들도 이러한 취지에서 지상파방송의 파행과 문제점을 분석하는 보도를 하지 않고 있다.
학계의 입장도 마찬가지다. 방송산업, 문화산업, 한류 산업 등으로 연결되는 산업 논리에 의해 방송은 영리를 위한 수단으로 인식되었고 그 산업화에서 발생하는 기술적이고 세부적인 방송제도에 관한 연구에 집중하여 더 근본적인 문제에 대한 접근을 애써 외면해왔다는 측면을 무시하지 못할 것이다. 또 일부는 무엇인지는 모르지만, 자신의 개인적 입신양명을 위해 자신의 지식을 언어인지학적으로 부지불식간에 사용하고 있는지도 모른다.
우리가 겪고 있는 현재 한국 방송의 혼란은 결국 방송의 자유라는 의미를 본질적으로 연구해 그 가치를 구명하고 국민에게 방송의 자유의 중요성을 부각시키고 그 승인을 얻을 때 해결될 수 있는 것이다.
방송의 자유의 핵심적인 내용은 국가와 기업으로부터의 방송의 독립, 방송사의 프로그램형성권의 독자성과 자율성의 확보를 위한 법적, 제도적인 입법형성을 적극적으로 추진함으로써 현재 방송계의 문제점을 근본적으로 해결할 수 있는 것이며 이를 위해서는 국민의 인식 수준이 제고되어야 한다. 물론 현재 우리나라의 방송을 제외한 언론시장이 다양성이 모자라고 있어 특정 기업과 세력을 대변하는 수준을 부인할 수는 없어 국민의 인식 수준을 높이는 데 많은 어려움이 있지만 결국 헌법적 가치인 방송의 자유를 지키려는 의지로 이 현안의 문제가 해결될 수밖에 없다.
첫째 방송의 자유의 실질적인 보장을 위한 방송사의 지배구조의 민주적 정당성이 확보되도록 국회의 입법사항으로 정해져야 한다. KBS의 경우 KBS 법을 별로도 제정하고 그 속에서 KBS의 내부적 지배구조가 국가와 재벌로부터 독립될 수 있도록 법률사항으로 이루어져야 한다. 이 경우 단순한 형식적인 대표성이 아니라 방송의 가치를 실현할 수 있는 자격을 법률사항으로 정해 국회의 동의에 의한 임명이 이루어져야 한다. 동시에 이 규정에서는 가능한 한 정치적 영향력을 배제해야 한다. 또한 사장의 권한은 법적･사실적인 대표성을 가지는 것을 명문으로 확정하고 프로그램에 대한 직･간접적인 간섭 내지 침해를 금지를 명문으로 규정해야 한다. 또한 KBS 내부의 프로그램편성이 다양하게 이루어질 수 있도록 내부위원회를 구성해 내적 책임에 의해 프로그램편성권이 유지될 수 있도록 입법화해야 한다.
둘째 KBS에 대한 국가의 감독은 합법성 통제에 그쳐야 한다. 현재 KBS를 포함한 방송사업자에 대한 통제권한은 방통위가 가지고 있는데, 이 경우 방송법과 방송 관련법에 근거한 제한적 합법성 통제만이 이루어져야 한다. 방송정책 전반에 대한 합목적성 통제는 허용되지 않으며 법적 통제가 아니라 사실관계에 의한 통제, 특히 행정지도에 의한 통제는 허용되어서는 안 된다. 국가기관의 방송사에 대한 사실상 또는 사법적 통제의 어려움이 있는 행정지도에 의한 통제는 결국 자의에 의한 방송통제에 치우칠 개연성이 있어 법치주의원리와 정면으로 부딪치는 것이다.
셋째 방송의 헌법적인 가치를 고려해서 정책을 집행할 수 있는 독립된 위원회가 필요하다. 현재 방통위의 경우 방송과 정보통신이 융합되어 있어 외형적으로는 방송과 통신의 융합이라는 취지에 맞게 이루어져 있으나 실질적으로는 전혀 가치가 다른 매체의 결합 즉, 문화가치와 공공적 성격을 내포하는 방송과 상업, 산업, 경제재의 성격을 가지는 통신의 결합을 추구하고 있어 통일적이고 융합적인 정책집행이 불가능하다. 결국 방송의 영역에서는 국민의 사적･공적 의사형성이라는 측면이 강하게 부각되어 국민에게 다양한 정보의 제공을 통한 민주적 기본질서의 형성에 이바지한다는 문화적인 요소를 기본가치로 지향하는 독립된 방송규제기관이 필요하다.
마지막으로 KBS의 물적 지배구조에서 독립이 필요하다. 법률과 인적 지배구조로부터 독립되어있다고 하더라도 실제 물적독립, 즉 운영재원이 국가, 기업, 사회단체로부터 독립되어있지 않으면 실질적으로 프로그램의 기획, 제작 그리고 편성에서의 자유는 존재하지 않는다. 특히 KBS의 재정 상황이 공영방송으로서는 광고 수입이 방송수신료 수입보다 더 큰 비중을 차지하는 기형적인 성격임에도 불구하고 수신료 분리 징수를 통해 더욱더 재정 상황을 어렵게 하는 정부 정책은 공영방송의 존속 및 발전을 심각하게 침해하는 것이다.
Currently, Korean broadcasting, especially KBS, a public broadcaster, is experiencing more disruptive disruptions than any other administration. The heads of broadcasters and the government are trying to ignore the seriousness of the organization because it is an internal problem, and some large newspapers are not reporting to analyze the disruptions and problems of terrestrial broadcasting for this purpose. The same is true of the academic community. It cannot be ignored that broadcasting has been recognized as a means for profit by industrial logic that connects the broadcasting industry, cultural industry, and Korean Wave industry, and has focused on research on technological and detailed broadcasting systems arising from the industrialization and has been trying to avoid approaching more fundamental problems. Also, some may be using their knowledge linguistically and cognitively for their personal personality, although they do not know what it is. The current confusion in Korean broadcasting can be resolved when we essentially study the meaning of freedom of broadcasting, investigate its value, highlight the importance of freedom of broadcasting to the people, and obtain its approval. The core content of freedom of broadcasting is to fundamentally solve the problems of the current broadcasting industry by actively promoting the independence of broadcasting from the state and companies and the formation of legal and institutional legislation to secure the independence and autonomy of broadcasters' right to form programs. Of course, there are many difficulties in raising the level of public awareness as the media market in Korea, except for broadcasting, lacks diversity, so there is no denying the level of representation of certain companies and forces. First, it should be determined as a legislative matter of the National Assembly to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the broadcaster’s governance structure for substantial guarantee of freedom of broadcasting. In the case of KBS, the KBS law should be enacted separately, and in it, it should be made up of laws so that KBS’s internal governance structure can be independent from the state and chaebol. In this case, not just formal representation, but the qualification to realize the value of broadcasting should be determined as a legal matter, and appointments should be made with the consent of the National Assembly. At the same time, political influence should be excluded from this regulation where possible. In addition, the authority of the president should be established in a prestigious manner to have legal and realistic representation, and the prohibition of direct or indirect interference or infringement on the program should be stipulated in a prestigious manner. In addition, an internal committee should be formed to legislate so that programs can be organized in various ways within KBS so that the right to organize programs can be maintained by internal responsibility. Second, state supervision of KBS should be limited to legal control. Currently, the Korea Communications Commission has control over broadcasters, including KBS, and in this case, only limited legality control based on the Broadcasting Act and Broadcasting-related laws should be carried out. Purposeful control over the overall broadcasting policy is not allowed, and control based on facts, not legal control, especially administrative guidance, should not be allowed. Control by administrative guidance, which has difficulties in de facto or judicial control of broadcasters by state agencies, is likely to be biased toward arbitrary broadcast control, which is a direct confrontation with the rule of law. Third, there is a need for an independent committee that can implement policies in consideration of the constitutional value of broadcasting. In the case of the Korea Communications Commission, broadcasting and information and communication are fused to suit the purpose of broadcasting and communication, but in reality, it is impossible to implement a unified and convergent policy because it seeks to combine media with completely different values, namely broadcasting with public characteristics, and communication with commercial, industrial, and economic goods. In the end, in the field of broadcasting, the aspect of the formation of private and public opinions of the people is strongly highlighted, and an independent broadcasting regulatory agency is needed to aim for cultural elements that contribute to the formation of a democratic basic order through the provision of various information to the people. Finally, independence from KBS’s material governance structure is needed. Even if it is independent of law and human governance, there is no real physical independence, that is, freedom in planning, production, and organization of programs unless the operating resources are independent of the state, enterprises, and social organizations. In particular, even though KBS’s financial situation is a deformed character in which advertising revenue accounts for a greater proportion of broadcasting license fee revenue for public broadcasting, the government policy that makes the financial situation even more difficult through separate collection of license fees seriously infringes on the survival and development of public broadcasting.
Currently, Korean broadcasting, especially KBS, a public broadcaster, is experiencing more disruptive disruptions than any other administration. The heads of broadcasters and the government are trying to ignore the seriousness of the organization because it is an internal problem, and some large newspapers are not reporting to analyze the disruptions and problems of terrestrial broadcasting for this purpose. The same is true of the academic community. It cannot be ignored that broadcasting has been recognized as a means for profit by industrial logic that connects the broadcasting industry, cultural industry, and Korean Wave industry, and has focused on research on technological and detailed broadcasting systems arising from the industrialization and has been trying to avoid approaching more fundamental problems. Also, some may be using their knowledge linguistically and cognitively for their personal personality, although they do not know what it is. The current confusion in Korean broadcasting can be resolved when we essentially study the meaning of freedom of broadcasting, investigate its value, highlight the importance of freedom of broadcasting to the people, and obtain its approval. The core content of freedom of broadcasting is to fundamentally solve the problems of the current broadcasting industry by actively promoting the independence of broadcasting from the state and companies and the formation of legal and institutional legislation to secure the independence and autonomy of broadcasters' right to form programs. Of course, there are many difficulties in raising the level of public awareness as the media market in Korea, except for broadcasting, lacks diversity, so there is no denying the level of representation of certain companies and forces. First, it should be determined as a legislative matter of the National Assembly to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the broadcaster’s governance structure for substantial guarantee of freedom of broadcasting. In the case of KBS, the KBS law should be enacted separately, and in it, it should be made up of laws so that KBS’s internal governance structure can be independent from the state and chaebol. In this case, not just formal representation, but the qualification to realize the value of broadcasting should be determined as a legal matter, and appointments should be made with the consent of the National Assembly. At the same time, political influence should be excluded from this regulation where possible. In addition, the authority of the president should be established in a prestigious manner to have legal and realistic representation, and the prohibition of direct or indirect interference or infringement on the program should be stipulated in a prestigious manner. In addition, an internal committee should be formed to legislate so that programs can be organized in various ways within KBS so that the right to organize programs can be maintained by internal responsibility. Second, state supervision of KBS should be limited to legal control. Currently, the Korea Communications Commission has control over broadcasters, including KBS, and in this case, only limited legality control based on the Broadcasting Act and Broadcasting-related laws should be carried out. Purposeful control over the overall broadcasting policy is not allowed, and control based on facts, not legal control, especially administrative guidance, should not be allowed. Control by administrative guidance, which has difficulties in de facto or judicial control of broadcasters by state agencies, is likely to be biased toward arbitrary broadcast control, which is a direct confrontation with the rule of law. Third, there is a need for an independent committee that can implement policies in consideration of the constitutional value of broadcasting. In the case of the Korea Communications Commission, broadcasting and information and communication are fused to suit the purpose of broadcasting and communication, but in reality, it is impossible to implement a unified and convergent policy because it seeks to combine media with completely different values, namely broadcasting with public characteristics, and communication with commercial, industrial, and economic goods. In the end, in the field of broadcasting, the aspect of the formation of private and public opinions of the people is strongly highlighted, and an independent broadcasting regulatory agency is needed to aim for cultural elements that contribute to the formation of a democratic basic order through the provision of various information to the people. Finally, independence from KBS’s material governance structure is needed. Even if it is independent of law and human governance, there is no real physical independence, that is, freedom in planning, production, and organization of programs unless the operating resources are independent of the state, enterprises, and social organizations. In particular, even though KBS’s financial situation is a deformed character in which advertising revenue accounts for a greater proportion of broadcasting license fee revenue for public broadcasting, the government policy that makes the financial situation even more difficult through separate collection of license fees seriously infringes on the survival and development of public broadcasting.