Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 63 , No. 2
[Paper List] [Go to Volume List]

[ Journalism Communication ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 77-109
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2019
Received 12 Oct 2018 Revised 28 Mar 2019 Accepted 04 Apr 2019
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2019.63.2.003

인터넷 대화의 시민성 활성화 효과 : 언론매체 이용이 인터넷 읽기와 쓰기에 미치는 영향과 인터넷 읽기와 쓰기가 학습과 참여에 미치는 영향
이준웅** ; 이종혁 ; 이상원 ; 황현정
**서울대학교 언론정보학과 교수 (jwrhee@snu.ac.kr)
경희대학교 언론정보학과 교수
경희대학교 언론정보학과 교수
서울대학교 언론정보학과 박사과정

Enhancing Democratic Citizenship through Internet Conversation in South Korea
June Woong Rhee** ; Jong Hyuk Lee ; Sangwon Lee ; Hyunjung Hwang
**Seoul National University (jwrhee@snu.ac.kr)
Kyunghee University
Kyunghee University
Seoul National University
Funding Information ▼
초록

인터넷에서 동료 시민을 대상으로 글을 쓰고 또한 그들의 글을 읽는 행위는 시민적 역량과 덕성을 강화하는 데 도움을 주는가? 이 연구는 언론매체 이용과 인터넷 상의 시민 간 대화가 공적 사안에 대한 학습과 정치적 참여를 돕는다는 주장을 제시하고, 조사자료를 수집해서 제시한 주장을 경험적으로 검토했다. 자료는 2017년 5월 제19대 대통령선거 전후로 패널 조사를 통해서 얻었다. 자료를 분석한 결과, 진보적 뉴스채널을 이용할수록 인터넷 읽기와 면대면 대화가 증가했다. 또한 진보, 중도, 보수 등 이념적으로 다양하게 뉴스를 이용할수록 인터넷 읽기와 면대면 대화가 증가했다는 사실도 발견했다. 둘째, 조사 참여자가 선택한 뉴스에 대한 평가가 부정적일수록 인터넷 공동체, 교류매체, 전언매체 등에서 동료 시민의 글을 읽는 빈도가 증가했다. 셋째, 인터넷 읽기와 면대면 대화는 학습에 긍정적 영향을 미쳤지만, 인터넷 글쓰기는 학습에 부정적 영향을 보였다. 마지막으로, 인터넷 쓰기는 사회집단 참여와 더불어 2017년 대통령선거 당시 정치적 참여활동에도 긍정적 효과를 미쳤다는 것을 발견했다. 연구결과를 언론매체 이용과 시민 간 대화가 시민성 활성화에 미치는 영향의 관점에서 논의했다.

Abstract

This study examined whether citizens’ reading and writing on the Internet brought about citizens’ learning and participation during the spring of 2017 in South Korea. Drawing on Katz’s model of ‘news-conversation-opinion-action’, theories of deliberative democracy, and empirical studies exploring conditions under which conversation invites political knowledge and participation, this study posited that consumption of news media and subsequent evaluation of news content could vitalize conversation among citizens. It is also hypothesized that conversation would lead to knowledge acquisition and enhance willingness to participate in social and political activities. A set of panel data comprising of 1,099 pre-test respondents and 1,201 post-test respondents was gathered from a panel survey during May and June 2017. The analysis of the data showed that consumption of news media had effects on Internet reading and face-to-face conversation. In particular, ideological diversity of news consumption as well as consumption of liberal news media led to increases in Internet reading and face-to-face conversation. However, no comparable finding was obtained for Internet writing. Second, it was found that the more negative the evaluation of news fairness, the more likely the respondents were to read fellow citizens’ writings on the Internet. By contrast, the more positive the evaluation of news fairness, the more likely the respondents were to engage in face-to-face conversations with fellow citizens. Third, Internet reading and face-to-face conversation had positive impacts on learning from news media where Internet writing showed a negative effect. Finally, this study found that Internet writing and face-to-face conversation were positively related to participation in social and political activities during the 2017 Presidential election campaign. It is also found that Internet reading showed a negative relationship with political participation. The implications of the findings were discussed in terms of the role of Internet and face-to-face conversation in activation of democratic citizenship in South Korea.

Keywordscitizenship, fairness, conversation, political learning, participation
키워드: 언론의 공정성, 인터넷 토론, 정치참여, 정치학습, 시민성
Acknowledgments

이 논문은 저자들이 2017년 한국신문협회 창립 60주년 세미나에 발표하고 사후 정책보고서로 출판한 <신문의 사회경제적 효과>에 사용한 자료를 재분석하고 이론적 논의를 새롭게 더한 것입니다. 논문의 초고를 2018년 8월 25일 한일언론학회 국제심포지엄에서 같은 제목으로 발표한 바 있습니다. 이 연구는 서울대학교 언론정보연구소, 2018 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원(NRF-2018S1A5B8070398)을 일부 받았습니다.

References
1. 강내원 (2004). 인터넷과 대중매체 이용이 참여에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 세대 집단 간 비교. <한국언론학보>, 48권 3호, 116-143.
2. 김은미·이준웅 (2006). 읽기의 재발견: 인터넷 토론 공간에서 커뮤니케이션 효과. <한국언론학보>, 50권 4호, 65-94.
3. 김춘식 (2012). 전통미디어와 대화를 통한 정치정보 습득이 정치 신뢰와 미디어 신뢰에 미치는 영향 : 유권자의 인터넷 이용 동기와 인터넷 정치정보노출의 매개역할을 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 56권 4호, 389-413.
4. 김현주 (1999). 대통령 후보에 대한 이미지 형성과 커뮤니케이션. <한국방송학보>, 12호, 45-74.
5. 나은경·이강형·김현석 (2009). 댓글 읽기/쓰기를 통한 온라인 소통이 대의민주주의 사회에서 갖는 의미: 인터넷 뉴스 댓글 이용과 사회신뢰, 정치신뢰, 언론신뢰, 그리고 정치지식. <한국언론학보>, 53권 1호, 109-132.
6. 노성종·민영 (2009). 숙의와 참여의 공존: 대화의 숙의수준에 따른 정치적 이견과 정치참여의 관계 탐색. <한국언론학보>, 53권 3호, 173-197.
7. 민영·노성종 (2013). 가치, 참여, 인터넷 이용 : 386세대와 정보화세대의 비교. <한국언론학보>, 57권 2호, 5-32.
8. 민영·주익현 (2007). 사회자본의 민주주의 효과: 미디어 이용과 사회자본이 정치적 관심과 신뢰 및 참여에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 51권 6호, 190-217.
9. 박종민 (2003). 휴대전화, 인터넷, 텔레비전의 미디어 속성 차이와 이용 동기 요인 연구. <한국언론학보>, 47권 2호, 221-249.
10. 송현주·신승민·박승관 (2006). 인터넷 게시판에서의 이견 읽기와 논변구성과 정치적 관용에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 50권 5호, 160-183.
11. 심미선·김은미·오하영 (2013). 스마트미디어 이용자 및 비이용자의 성향동기와 미디어 이용 간의 관계에 대한 연구. <한국방송학보>, 27권 6호, 75-114.
12. 오택섭·박성희 (2005). 적대적 매체지각: 메시지인가 메신저인가. <한국언론학보>, 49권 2호, 135-166.
13. 이종혁 (2015). 언론 보도에 대한 편향적 인식이 공정성 평가에 미치는 영향: 우호적, 중도적, 적대적 매체에 대한 비교 검증. <한국언론학보>, 59권 1호, 7-36.
14. 이준웅 (2005). 비판적 담론 공중의 등장과 언론에 대한 공정성 요구: 공정한 담론 규범 형성을 위하여. <방송문화연구>, 17권 2호, 139-172.
15. 이준웅 (2009). 인터넷 공론장의 매개된 상호가시성과 담론 공중의 형성. <언론정보연구>, 46권 2호, 5-32.
16. 이준웅·김은미 (2006). 인터넷 정치 토론과 정치토론 효능감. <한국언론학보>, 50권 3호, 394-424.
17. 이준웅·김은미·심미선 (2006). 다매체 이용자의 성향적 동기: 다매체 환경에서 이용과 충족 이론의 확장. <한국언론학보>, 50권 1호, 252-284.
18. 이준웅·최영재 (2005). 한국 신문 위기의 원인: 뉴스 매체의 기능적 대체, 저가치 제공, 공정성 위기. <한국언론학보>, 49권 5호. 5-35.
19. 하종원 (2006). 대학생의 인터넷 정치참여에 관한 연구: 정치효능감과 정치신뢰감을 중심으로. <한국언론정보학보>, 32권, 369-405.
20. 황용석 (2001). 인터넷 이용과 정치참여에 관한 탐색적 연구: 제16대 총선 기간 동안 인터넷 정치사이트 이용을 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 45권 3호, 421-456.
21. Barber, B. (1984), Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22. Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133-160.
23. Blanchard, A. L., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The experienced sense of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 64-79.
24. Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83-111.
25. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
26. Dahlgren, P. (2000). The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication, 17(4), 335-340.
27. Delli-Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.
28. Delli-Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29. Eveland Jr, W. P., &Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205-224.
30. Farrar, C., Fishkin, J. S., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C., & Paluck, E. L. (2010). Disaggregating deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British journal of political science, 40(2), 333-347.
31. Fishkin, J. S. (1999). Toward a deliberative democracy: Experimenting with an ideal. In S. Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 279–90). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
32. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge university press.
34. Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 3-23.
35. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799-1839.
36. Grönlund, K., Setälä, M., & Herne, K. (2010). Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 95-117.
37. Gunther, A. C., Miller, N., & Liebhart, J. L. (2009). Assimilation and contrast in a test of the hostile media effect. Communication Research, 36(6), 747-764.
38. Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J. L., & Chih-Yun Chia, S. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3), 295-320.
39. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Hwang, H., Pan, Z., & Sun, Y. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11(1), 76-97.
41. Ikeda, K., & Boase, J. (2011). Multiple discussion networks and their consequence for political participation. Communication Research, 38(5), 660-683.
42. Iyengar, S., Luskin, R. C., &Fishkin, J. S. (2003, August). Facilitating informed public opinion: evidence from face-to-face and online deliberative polls. In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
43. Katz, E. (1992). On parenting a paradigm: Gabriel Tarde’s agenda for opinion and communication research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 80-85.
44. Katz, E. (2006). Rediscovering Gabriel Tarde. Political Communication, 23(3), 263-270.
45. Katz, E. (2014). Back to the street: When media and opinion leave home. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 454-463.
46. Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361-385.
47. Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352-381.
48. Levine, J. M., & Russo, E. (1995). Impact of anticipated interaction on information acquisition. Social Cognition, 13(3), 293-317.
49. Luskin, R., Fishkin, J., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455-487.
50. McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 45–51.
51. McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
52. Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443-460.
53. Mutz, D. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111-126.
54. Mutz, D. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838-855.
55. Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B., &Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and four dimensions of citizenship. G. C. Edwards III, L. R. Jacobs, and R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media, (pp. 22-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439-461.
57. Reid, S. A. (2012). A self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 381-399.
58. Robinson, J. P., & Levy, M. R. (1986). Interpersonal communication and news comprehension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(2), 160-175.
59. Rojas, H. (2008). Strategy versus understanding: How orientations toward political conversation influence political engagement. Communication Research, 35(4), 452-480.
60. Rojas, H. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(3), 343-363.
61. Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 902-927.
62. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 727-743.
63. Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 728-753.
64. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565.
65. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee, N., Scholl, R. M., & McLeod, D. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 676-703.
66. Shah, D. V., Jack M. McLeod & Lee, N. (2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship, Political Communication, 26(1), 102-117.
67. Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political Communication, 18(3), 273-300.
68. Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
69. Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the dark side of political deliberation: The effects of media and political discussion on political interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 679-706.
70. Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32(6), 794-821.
71. Weber, L. M., & Bergman, J. (2001). Who participates and how? A comparison of citizens “online” and the mass public. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV, March 15–17.
72. Wellman, B., Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436–455.
73. Wyatt, R. O., Kim, J., & Katz, E. (2000). How feeling free to talk affects ordinary political conversation, purposeful argumentation, and civic participation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 99-114.
74. Yamamoto, M., & Nah, S. (2018). Mobile information seeking and political participation: A differential gains approach with offline and online discussion attributes. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2070-2090.