정보왜곡과 편향적 보도의 개선을 위한 미디어의 역할* -정치적 다원주의와 헌법적 한계-

Media Responsibility for Information Distortion and Biased Reporting -Political Pluralism and Constitutional Limits- Jo, Hanui** Research Assistant Professor, Institute for Legal Studies Hanyang University We all interpret the same event differently by reflecting our own ideologies and values, and consequently forming divergent opinions. The media are no exception. Media outlets may arbitrarily select or omit information on specific issues at random, or report the same events in fundamentally different ways. When users are exposed to distorted or ideologically biased media content, the range of information available for selective consumption is reduced, thereby impeding the formation of genuine public opinion. Ultimately, this distortion of public discourse may ultimately result in the will of the people being misrepresented in state decision-making processes, making the realization of genuine parliamentary democracy more difficult. Today, alongside the polarization of party politics, the media environment is undergoing rapid change. Particularly, the proliferation of internet-based media and algorithmic recommendation systems is intensifying biased information consumption. These changes weaken the function of the public sphere by limiting the possibility of encountering diverse perspectives in the political opinion-forming process. This raises constitutional concerns as it could undermine the substantive foundation of political pluralism. Empirical studies indicate that selective exposure to partisan media contributes to political polarization. Continuous exposure to ideologically aligned media can lead to changes in political beliefs. These changes encourages the selection of similar media sources, which ultimately reinforces preexisting convictions. When these dynamics extend across society, they can result in intensified political polarization marked by increasingly divergent political positions. Although many media outlets exist, contemporary information environments are characterized less by political pluralization than by selective exposure to distorted and biased media. This results in the formation of extreme public opinions. This ultimately infringes upon users’ right to know. Under conditions of value-laden reporting and selective exposure, the media fail to perform their essential function of facilitating fair public opinion formation. This necessitates a discussion on whether regulatory intervention is required. Emphasizing the public nature of the media to justify stronger legal regulation poses a risk to the freedom of expression by Article 21 of the Constitution. State intervention in the media may impede the free formation of opinions. Unlike cases involving clear instances of fake news or fabricated reports, ideological bias and value-oriented distortion of information alone are not easily subject to legal regulation. Without clear standards of public interest determine when private intent and persuasion based on factual information become detrimental to the public good, such regulation could violate the principle of proportionality and infringe upon freedom of expression. However, under current law, newly emerging digital media providers such as YouTube and social media, as well as online platforms, are not recognized as media outlets under the Press Arbitration Act. Consequently, they bear no social responsibility commensurate with their societal influence. Legal reforms are necessary to ensure that newly emerging media, focusing on function rather than form, can also fulfill their social responsibilities.