the Media and Democracy in the Knowledge Society

International Conference on 

the Media and Democracy 

in the Knowledge Society 

2006. 9.27 (Wed.) — 9.29 (Fri.) 

Venue: International Conference Hall, 20F, Korea Press Center (27 Sept.) 

Zelkova Hall, Tower Hotel (28, 29 Sept.) 

(27 ), Zelkova) (28, 29 ) 

Organizers / 

Korean National Commission for UNESCO / 

Korea Press Foundation / 

Korea Agency for Digital Opportunity and Promotion / 

Sponsors / 

UNESCO / 

Korean Society for Journalism and Communication Studies / 

Korean Association for Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies / 

The Hope Institute / 

Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) /

The ideas and opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily represent the views of the Korean National Commission 

for UNESCO. 

© Published by the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, 2006. 

Information and Communication Team 

Korean National Commission for UNESCO 

CPO Box 64, Seoul 100-022 Republic of Korea 

Tel: 82 2 755 6225 / Fax : 82 2 755 7477 

E-mail: eakim@unesco.or.kr & ssi@unesco.or.kr 

http://www.unesco.or.kr

.. International Conference on the 

Media and Democracy in the Knowledge Society 

(27 – 29 September, 2006, Seoul, Korea) 

CONTENTS 

Keynote Presentations & Special Session 

• “Communication Ethics as the Foundation of Democracy” 

Prof. Clifford Christians, USA / 3 

• “Knowledge Society for the Better World” Prof. CHOI Changsup, ROK / 15 

• “Towards the Realization of More Democracy” Mr. PARK Won Soon, ROK / 34 

• “Alternative Media and Democracy in the Contemporary Global Content” 

Prof. John Downing, USA / 42 

Part I. Philosophical and Ideological Approaches 

• “Internet, Public Sphere and Democracy” Prof. YOON Young-Tae, ROK / 61 

• “Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Age” 

Prof. GUAN Shijie, China / 77 

• “Communication and Democracy Are Two Sides of the Same Coin” 

Mr. Zahid Hussein, Pakistan / 99 

• “Media Ethics in the Immature Democracies” Prof. SON Bong-ho, ROK / 103 

• Discussion Summary / 118 

Part II. Educational Approach 

• “The Present Situation of Media Education and the Prospects for Global Media 

Education” Prof. John Benson, Australia / 125 

• “Internet and Media Education” Prof. KIM Kitai, ROK / 140 

• “Citizen, Media, Democracy: Freedom of Expression in Digital Age” 

Prof. Malee Boonsiripunth, Thailand / 149 

• “Democratic Civic Education in Korea: The Necessity of Democratic Civic 

Education and Its Developmental Direction” Prof. CHUN Tuk Chu, ROK / 164 

• “ICT, Education, and Culture in the Knowledge Society: Special Reference to Iran” 

Prof. Tavakol Mohamed, Iran / 175 

• “Development of DOI and DOI-Based Policy” Dr. CHO Cheung Moon, ROK / 183 

• Discussion Summary / 209

Part III. Political and Cultural Approaches 

• “Digital Media and Cultural Diversity” Dr. Verena Metze-Mangold, Germany 

/ 217 

• “Transnational Digital Media and the Future of Cultural Diversities in South Asia: 

A Critical Analysis” Dr. Agrawal Binod Chand, India / 225 

• “Portal Journalism and Agenda Setting in Democracy” Prof. CHOI Young Jae, 

ROK / 234 

• “E-Publics: Political Participation in Chinese Discussion Forums” Prof. WU Mei, 

Macau / 246 

• “Digital Gatekeepers: New Threats to Democracy?” Prof. CHOI Yang Soo, ROK / 262 


Part IV. Citizen’s Media Movement 

• “Digitization, Second Modernity, and PSB For All Campaign: Digital Democracy 

Reinventing Taiwan TV Industry through a Global-Local Interrelationships” Dr. 

Hamilton Cheng, Taiwan / 275 

• “Online Civic Journalism and News Production” Prof. CHUNG Hoe Kyung, ROK 

/ 287 

• “Internet and Freedom of Expression: Free Speech in Cyberspace vs. Real-Name 

Policy” Prof. KIM Gyong Ho, ROK / 306 

• “Media Policy and Citizen Participation in Korea” Prof. JUNG In-Sook, ROK / 320 

• “Internet Governance and Cultural Diversity towards a Knowledge Society” 

Mr. LIM Seung-ho, ROK / 335 

• “The Role of Citizen and Digital Media for Democracy in the Knowledge 

Society” Prof. LEE Jin-ro, ROK / 356 

• “Analyzing Public Perception toward Civic Participation Activities of Online and 

Offline News Media” Prof. BAN Hyun, ROK / 375 

• “Development and Role of Mass Media in Building of the Civil Society in 

Uzbekistan” Dr. Ravshan Okhunov, Uzbekistan / 386 

• “Democratic Governance in the Information Age and Cyberactivism in Korea” 

Prof. JHO Whasun, ROK / 392 

• Discussion Summary / 413

Part V. Institutional Approach 

• “Pacific Islands Communication, Information and Knowledge Perspectives for 

Cooperation and Development” Mr. James Bentley, Fiji / 425 

• “RT-RW Net and E-democracy in Indonesia” Prof. Suyatno, Indonesia / 432 

• “DTV Transition of Japan: Digital Media Communication Policies and Current 

Status by Country” Prof. Tsutomu Kanayama, Japan / 446 

• “Media and Good Governance: Institutional Approach” Ms. Eunice Akiwo / 458 

• “Political Participation through the Internet: Focusing on the Process of Agenda- 

Rippling” Prof. Sung Tae Kim / 463 

• “Capacity Building for E-Governance: Lessons from Korea” Mr. SEONG Si 

Kyung, ROK / 472 


Country Reports 

• Fiji: Mr. James Bentley / 493 

• India: Dr. Agrawal Binod Chand / 496 

• Indonesia: Prof. Suyatno / 503 

• Iran: Dr. Tavakol Mahamed / 510 

• Japan : Prof. Tsutomu Kanayama / 516 

• Macau: Prof. WU Mei / 523 

• Pakistan: Mr. Zahid Hussein / 527 

• Republic of Korea: Dr. KIM Min-Soo / 535 

• Republic of Palau: Ms. Eunice Akiwo/ 540 

• Taiwan: Dr. Hamilton Cheng / 544 

• Thailand: Prof. Malee Boonsiripunth / 551 

• Uzbekistan: Dr. Ravshan Okhunov / 557 


Appendix 

1. Recommendations/ 565 

2. Opening and Congratulatory Addresses / 568 

3. Programme / 573 

4. List of Participants / 580 

5. Sketches of the Conference / 590

International Conference on the 



Keynote Presentations & Special Session 

• “Communication Ethics as the Foundation of Democracy” 

Prof. Clifford Christians, USA 

• “Knowledge Society for the Better World” 

Prof. CHOI Changsup, ROK 

• “Towards the Realization of More Democracy” 

Mr. PARK Won Soon, ROK 

• “Alternative Media and Democracy in the Contemporary Global 

Content” Prof. John Downing, USA 

• Discussion Summary

보도 윤리, 민주주의의 기초 

Communication Ethics as the Foundation of Democracy 


Prof. Clifford Christians 

University of Illinois-Urbana, USA 

Communities are knit together linguistically and because the lingual is not neutral but value-laden 

our social bonds are moral claims. Without allegiance to a set of ordering relations, democratic life 

becomes, as a matter of fact, inconceivable. Words are concrete forms of life, whose meaning 

derives from an interpretive context that humans themselves supply. We negotiate the human 

order through language, so democratic entities as lingual orders are not merely political and 

economic arrangements but moral structures. 

The biological and moral grow up together. Children, for example, ascertain that in 

general, certain things belong to certain people and in the process recognize a moral fact about 

social relations (Outka and Reeder 1993, p. 93). Children learn tolerance too—at least that physical 

assault is forbidden, though perhaps not sophisticated versions of tolerating various opinions. 

Sissela Bok (1995) calls these minimalist values, that is, a limited set of fundamental moral 

commitments that are necessary for collective survival. Minimalist moral values provide a basis for 

political dialogue and negotiation but do not call for agreement as to their source or exceptionless 

character (Bok, 1995, 18-19, 53-59). The minimalist values “most easily recognized across societal 

boundaries” are the “positive duties of care and reciprocity; constraints on violence, deceit and 

betrayal; and norms for procedures and standards of justice” (Bok, 1995, 41). Without a broad 

acceptance of such common values, or what appears to be a natural affinity for them, a viable 

democratic order is impossible. Without a framework broadly owned and roughly understood, 

resolution of practical issues and constructive theorizing on particular matters is inconceivable. 

As Robert Adams observes: “Every society must, and therefore will, have a shared 

morality; but…a shared ethical theory is not required for a common morality….No comprehensive 

ethics theory…is likely to meet with general agreement in any modern society that permits free 

inquiry” (Outka and Reeder, 1993, 93). The killing of human beings may be generally condemned, 

while disagreements rage at the same time over capital punishment, euthanasia, and justified 

warfare. All things being equal, democratic societies are predisposed against lying while debating 

exceptions and theorizing the nature and parameters of deception. The status of property is a 

complicated problem in social theory, while our ordinary moral obligations about other people’s 

property are undisputed in everyday affairs. 

3



Moral duty is nurtured by the demands of social linkage and thus the core of a society’s 

common morality is pretheoretical agreement. However, ethical theory is not useless or marginal in 

shaping the common good. Societies speak with divided voices and often in error. “What counts 

as common morality, indeed, is not only imprecise but variable…and a difficult practical problem” 

(Outka and Reeder 1993, 96). Ethical theory is primarily an effort to articulate moral obligations, 

within the fallible and irresolute voices of everyday life. Among disagreements and uncertainty, 

we look for criteria and wisdom in settling disputes and clarifying confusions. Although 

metaethics has been largely abstract and fragmented, normative theories of an interactive sort 

invigorate our common discourse. 

Our references to moral matters involve the democratic community. A self exists only 

within “webs of interlocution,” and all self-interpretation implicitly or explicitly “acknowledges the 

necessarily social origin of any and all of their conceptions of the good and so of themselves.” 

Moral frameworks are as fundamental for orienting us in social space as the need to “establish our 

bearings in physical space” (Mulhall and Swift 1996, 112-113; cf. Taylor 1989, 36). 

Developing, maintaining, and articulating [our moral intuitions and reactions] is not 

something humans could easily or even conceivably dispense with….We can no more imagine a 

human life that fails to address the matter of its bearings in moral space than we can imagine one in 

which developing a sense of up and down, right and left is regarded as an optional human 

task….Moral orientation is inescapable because the questions to which the framework provides 

answers are themselves inescapable (Mulhall and Swift1996, 106-108). 

Alasdair MacIntyre (1988) is correct in thinking that societies ought to share some moral 

goods—such as a conception of justice—that are developed theoretically enough to enable us to 

resolve conflicts through reasoned agreement rather than brute force. But instead of expecting 

more theoretical coherence than history warrants, we should seek to maintain a mixture of various 

agreements that provide a basic mutuality. Through a common morality of this sort we can 

approximate consensus on issues and settle disputes within democratic institutions. 

In political philosophy we call it the common good. The health of democratic life depends 

on the vitality of the common good. Aristotle’s “common interest” is the basis for distinguishing 

defensible constitutions in the people’s interest from illegitimate ones on the rulers’ behalf. 

Thomas Aquinas insists on the common good as the ultimate end of law and government. 

Rousseau understood the common good as the object of the general will and the end of the state, in 

contrast to “particular wills.” In his famous book Totem and Taboo, Sigmund Freud (1952) argued 

that every society has taboo boundaries that distinguish it from others. But Freud claimed that all 

societies also raise up totems, ideals, a vision of what makes life worth living. And these totems are 

not fashioned out of thin air. They come into being when communities agree on some kind of 

4



common commitment. Although political and moral philosophers have differed on the precise 

content of the common good and how to promote it, there is a core meaning that the welfare of all 

citizens, rather than that of factions or special interests, should be served impartially. And, 

fundamentally it is a normative principle, not just the majority results of an opinion poll or voting. 

The common good cannot be understood statistically, but is a “fundamental concept of social 

morality” (Diggs 1973, 284). 

Democracy cannot be successful unless the common good comes into its own conceptually. 

Citizenship, civic discourse, community activism, and grass-roots participation are only moralistic 

pleading unless they are grounded in a defensible notion of the common good. The common good 

is the axis around which communities and politics become a democratic organism. More is lost 

through the eclipse of the common good than a sense of belonging and secure identity. Citizenship 

itself disappears from view. Charles Taylor also emphasizes the possibility and importance of a 

constitutive bonding to goods. For Taylor, the human preoccupation with life’s worth and 

meaning is best understood as situating ourselves in relation to moral goods in common rather 

than to a political order per se. A community is bound together in a network of shared beliefs and 

values. Therefore, civic associations in any meaningful sense are only possible through active 

participation in articulating the common good and mutuality in implementing it. As Craig 

Calhoun insists, we should build “the conditions of public life so that publics, always in the process 

of making themselves, might also make themselves good” (1993, 6). The distributive principle of 

commonness stands in contrast to the rights doctrine of individual autonomy. 

The common good entails obligations to one another. But liberal theory claims that a 

citizen’s obligation to the government results from a voluntary contract with other citizens. 

Through the voting process, individuals are said to decide how to order their obligations and offer 

their consent. Carole Pateman insists in starting over in moral terms. We assume an obligation by 

making a promise. When individuals promise, they carry an obligation to act accordingly. Making 

promises is one of the basic ways in which consenting individuals “freely create their own social 

relationships” (Pateman 1989; cf. 1985). But promises are made not primarily to the state but to 

fellow citizens. If obligations are rooted in promises, obligations are owed to fellow members of 

institutions and participants in social practices. Only under conditions of participatory democracy 

is there self-assumed political obligation. 

Pateman understands the nature of moral agency. We know ourselves primarily in relation 

to action and derivatively as thinkers withdrawn from it. All meaningful action is for the sake of 

community building; the bonding of persons is the epicenter of democratic formation. Given the 

primacy of relationships, unless our freedom is used to help others flourish, we deny our own wellbeing. 

“Since the relation of persons constitutes their existence as persons,…morally right action is 

5



one which intends community” (Macmurray 1961, p. 119). Pateman cuts personal being into the 

very heart of the social universe. The common good is accessible to us only in personal form; it has 

its ground and inspiration in personality. “Ontology must be rescued from submersion in things 

by being thought out entirely from the viewpoint of person and thus of Being….Ontology is truly 

itself only when it is personal” (Lotz 1963, 294-297). 

Promise making to one another is nurtured through a web of human relationships and 

open participation. Community connectedness through pledges made to one anther is the way to 

rejuvenate public life. 

Moral Literacy 

Since our public life in democracy is not merely functional, but knit together by social values, moral 

literacy ought to be privileged as the media’s mission. From this perspective, the media are 

challenged to participate in a community’s process of moral elucidation. The possibility exists in 

principle. Charles Taylor, for example, emphasizes that moral judgments are capable of rational 

clarification. Moral intuitions may appear to be instinctual, but “agents manifesting them are often 

capable of explaining just what it is about human beings that merits” reaction or involvement; “in 

other words, we articulate our intuitions by developing a particular ontology of the human” 

(Mulhall and Swift 1996, 103). The communal character of our moral interpretations enables the 

public media to come to grips with the common good. 

Thus, the various technologies of public communication ought to engender moral literacy. 

If societies are moral orders, and not merely lingual structures, communications in democracies 

ought to stimulate the moral imagination. To be a symbolically mature art form, entertainment 

television, for instance, ought to enable us to traverse the moral landscape. In this regard, 

investigative reporting has been deficient and news professionals ought to rectify it. The hardhitting 

stories, the investigative stories, lack a morally sensitive vocabulary. They don’t talk about 

moral issues in moral terms. They go to great lengths to do what, in a morally technical language, 

might be called “objectifying morality” by taking moral claims and making them to be empirical 

claims (Glasser 1992, 44). 

On those invigorating occasions when the moral contours of the taken-for-granted world 

are illuminated, the news media enhance our social dialogue. From this perspective, journalism is 

obligated to appeal to democratic citizens about human values. Such inclusion furthers a 

community’s ongoing process of moral evaluation by helping it penetrate through the political and 

economic surface to the moral dynamics underneath. Rather than merely provide readers and 

audiences with information, the press’s aim is morally literate citizens. 

6



Public life cannot be facilitated in technical terms only, but the moral dimension of issues 

needs to be represented in appropriately moral discourse. When journalists investigate 

government policies that are vacuous or unjust, they ought to do so in terms of common values that 

have broad acceptance in the community as a whole. Our widely shared moral intuitions—respect 

for the dignity of others, for instance—are developed through discourse within a community. In 

this sense media professionals participate in the citizen’s process of moral articulation. Therefore, 

public texts must enable us to “being a moral compass into readers’ lives” by accounting for things 

that matter to them (Denzin 1997, 284; cf. 2003, ch. 5). Communities are woven together by 

narratives that invigorate their common understanding of good and evil, happiness and reward, 

the meaning of life and death. Recovering and refashioning moral discourse help to amplify our 

deepest humanness and provide the soil in which democracy can flourish. 

As the moral dimension is articulated in news, features, editorials, and debates over social 

issues, journalism is not in alien territory. According to Taylor, we cannot make sense of human 

agency without it. 

Developing, maintaining and articulating [our moral intuitions and reactions] is not 

something humans could easily or even conceivably dispense with….We can no more imagine a 

human life that fails to address the matter of its bearings in moral space than we can imagine one in 

which developing a sense of up and down, right and left is regarded as an optional human 

task….Moral orientation is inescapable because the questions to which the framework provides 

answers are themselves inescapable (Mulhall and Swift, 1996, 106-108; cf. Taylor, 1989, 27- 

29). 

The communal character of our moral interpretations enables public journalism to come to 

grips with the common good. There are epiphanal moments in our social life that provide us with 

a vision of who we are and inspire us morally. Thinking is presuppositional, so our social vision 

and political action will always be value driven. Since Antonio Gramsci, we have realized that 

our politics manifest our deepest values. (Mouffe 1979, pp. 181-186, 191-192). The only salient issue 

is whether our value commitments are life affirming or not. Among contending values, some meet 

the community test and others do not. Those who include struggles over values in their everyday 

dialogue are empowered not only to greater self-consciousness but to a common citizenship that 

takes the moral dimension seriously. When we contextualize individual rights within communal 

goods, when we insist on promise keeping rather than contract, when we go beyond the lingual 

order to communities as moral entities, then the common good comes into its own conceptually. 

Through these three motifs, we identify and define the first principle of democracy. “A political 

society that is not concerned to promote the common good is apt to become slavish to its own 

system of rights and take the protection of these rights as its sole business” (Diggs, 1973, 292). 

7



Whenever one observes reenactments of purposeful history and justice, one sees the results 

of moral literacy. News can be considered redemptive when it serves as an instrument not of 

accommodation but of critique and social change. We all know stations and reporters who have 

refused infotainment and sought to awaken the civic conscience. Major league awards are still won 

by professionals in journalism who distinguish themselves for public service. Editorials have 

raised our consciousness of anti-semitism, and heightened our moral awareness of racism and 

gender discrimination. In the debates over war and worldwide trade in military arms, the moral 

issues in terms of just war theory and pacifism have emerged at various times in news and 

commentary. Affirmative action, environmental protection, health policy, global warming, gun 

control, incarceration, and welfare reform raise moral conflicts that journalists can help the public 

negotiate. Over time and across the media, one observes a redemptive glow on occasion in which 

the news, commentary, and documentaries have facilitated moral discernment by their affirmation 

of democracy as a people’s movement and their insight into humankind as a distinctive species. 

Along these lines we redeem news as an agent of democratic formation. Building on its unique 

capacities as a genre, we are empowered toward moral literacy by their appealing to our conscience. 

Conclusion 

If we understand humans as moral beings, we are not inclined to construct an apparatus of 

professional ethics. We work instead within the general morality. Rather than developing rules for 

experts, our preoccupation is the moral dimension of everyday life. How the moral order works 

itself out in democratic formation is the issue, not, first of all, what media practitioners by their own 

standards consider virtuous. The moral domain is understood to be intrinsic to human beings, not 

a system of rules, norms, and ideals for a professional class external to society and culture as a 

whole. 

Media practitioners are not constituted as ethical selves antecedently but moral 

discernment unfolds dialectically between reporter and citizen. Rather than searching for neutral 

principles to which all parties can appeal, professional guidelines rooted in the general morality 

rest on a complex view of moral judgments. They are seen as a composite that integrates everyday 

experience, beliefs about the good, and feelings of approval and shame into an organic whole. This 

is a philosophical approach that situates the moral domain within the general purposes of life that 

people share contextually in their personal and social relations. Ideally, it engenders a new 

normative core for responsible reporting. 

The ultimate standard for media professionals is not role-specific ethical principles but the 

general morality. The mass media are institutions of power while decisions and policies can be 

8



self-serving, and practitioners defensive when criticized. Competition and careerism often cloud 

the application of professional codes or ethical guidelines. Journalists may have an understanding 

with sources that all information will be treated confidentially, for example, and then change their 

mind when the come under severe pressure and conclude that the public has a right to know this 

privileged material. Whereas we agree in the general morality that we ought to keep our promises. 

In this case, canons of professional practice allow self-defined exceptions for the journalist as expert. 

The concept of humans as moral beings presumes that facts and values are intermixed 

rather than dichotomous. Given the moral dimension intrinsic in the democratic order, 

interpreting its various configurations sufficiently means elaborating the moral component. To 

resonate intelligently with people’s values means that media workers know the general morality 

which they share with the public at large. Rather than developing internal standards oriented to 

professional privilege, the challenge for media practitioners is the moral life as a whole: no harm to 

innocents, truth-telling, reparations for wrong actions, beneficence, gratitude, honoring contracts, 

human dignity. Moral literacy understands moral behavior in interactive terms, with reporters 

operating in the same arena as citizens themselves. Democratic life rests on moral principles. 

Communication ethics is the foundation of genuine democracy. 

References 

Bok, Sissela.1995. Common Values. London and Columbia: University of Missouri Press. 

Calhoun, Craig. 1993. “The Public Good as a Social and Cultural Product.” Keynote Address to 

Lilly Foundation Conference, Indianapolis, p. 6. 

Denzin, Norman. 1997. Interpretive Ethnography: Interpretive Practices for the 21st Century. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 

----------. 2003. Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Diggs, Bernard J. 1973. “The Common Good as Reason for Political Action.” Ethics 83.4: 283-284. 

Freud, Sigmund. 1952. Totem and Taboo, translated by James Strachey. New York: Norton. 

Glasser, Theodore. 1952. “Squaring with the Reader: A Seminar on Journalism.” Kettering Review 

44 (Winter). 

Lotz, J. B. 1963. “Person and Ontology.” Philosophy Today 7 (Winter): 294-297. 

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre 

Dame Press. 

Macmurray, John. 1961. The Form of the Personal, 2 vols. London: Faber and Faber. 

9



Mulhall, Stephen, and Adam Swift. 1996. Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: 

Blackwell. 

Mouffe, Chantal, ed. 1979. Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Outka, Gene, and John Reeder, eds. 1993. Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

Pateman, Carole. 1985. The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critique of Liberal Theory. Cambridge, 

UK: Polity Press. 

----------. 1989. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory. Stanford, CA: 

Stanford University Press. 

Taylor, Charles. 1985. Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

----------. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 


10

[ 국문요약문] 보도 윤리, 

민주주의의 기초 

[ ] 

보도 윤리 


, ( ) 

. 

. . 

. 

minimalist values . 

‘ , 

, ’ . 

. 

. 

, . 

, , . 

, 

. 

, 

pretheoretical . 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. ‘ ’ 

, “ .” 

“ ” 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

‘ ’ , 

. 

. 『』 

. 

11



. , 

. , 

. . 

. 

. , 

. . 

. ( ) 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. Carole 

Pateman . . 

“ .” 

. 

. . 

agency . 

. 

. . 

, 

. “ , 

.” 

. 

. 

Moral Literacy 

, 

. 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

, 

. investigative reporting 

12



. 

. . 

‘ ’ 

. 

, 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. - 

- . 

. 

“ 

” . 

. 

, , 

. 

. , 

, 

, . 

. “ 

.” 

. 

( ) 

. 

. , 

. , 

. 

affirmative action, , , , , 

, . 

. 

. 

, 

. 

. . 

, . 

. 

13



. 

. , 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

, , 

, , , , . 

. . 

. 

14

지식사회의 바람직한 인간상: 지혜로운 세상을 향해 

Knowledge Society for the Better World: The World of Wisdom Beyond Knowledge 

Knowledge Society for the Better World: 

The World of Wisdom Beyond Knowledge 

Prof. CHOI Changsup, 

Professor of Communication, Sogang University, ROK 

Contents 

I. Prologue: 

1. Learning from Towards Knowledge Societies: What has been recommended by 

UNESCO in its Publishing 2005 

2. The World of Wisdom: Beyond Knowledge Society 

3. An Aesop Fable 

II. Humanistic Model of Knowledge Society: A Philosophical Plan of Communication for A Man 

of Wisdom who is: 

1. A Man of Liberty (with a Viewpoint for Liberation) 

2. A Man of Higher Viewpoint (and New Insights) 

3. A Man of Healthy Communication: Sharing Meaning and Experiences 

4. A Man of Self-Awareness 

5. A Man of Ideas 

6. A Man of Action 

7. A Man of Present (Today) 

8. A Man of Humility: ‘Humus’ 

9. A Man of Hope, Faith and Love 

III. Humanistic Model of Knowledge Society for a Better World Facilitating Values and Human 

Growth 

1. Lonergan's "Value Orientation" Theory 

2. Human Growth and Ontological Dualism 

15



I. Prologue 

1. Learning from TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SOCIETIES: What has been recommended by 

UNESCO in its Publishing 2005 

Which knowledge societies? 

A knowledge society is a society that is nurtured by its diversity and its capacities 

The concept of knowledge societies encompasses much broader social, ethical and political 

dimensions. There is a multitude of such dimensions which rules out the idea of any single, 

ready-made model, for such a model would not take sufficient account of cultural and 

linguistic diversity, vital if individuals are to feel at home in a changing world. Various 

forms of knowledge and culture always enter into the building of any society, including 

those strongly influenced by scientific progress and modern technology. It would be 

inadmissible to envisage the information and communication revolution leading 

– through a narrow, fatalistic technological determinism 

– to a single possible form of society. 

A knowledge society must foster knowledge-sharing 

The diffusion of information and communication technologies creates new opportunities for 

development 

The simultaneous growth of the internet, mobile telephony and digital technologies with the 

Third Industrial Revolution – which, at first in the developed countries, has seen much of the 

working population migrate to the service sector – has revolutionized the role of knowledge 

in our societies. 

Three pillars of knowledge societies 

First pillar: a better enhancement of the value of existing forms of knowledge to narrow the 

knowledge divide 

All societies possess a rich range of knowledge and make use, in their daily lives, of various 

levels and types of knowledge that they produce and pass on using a wide variety of means, 

practices and tools. 

16



Second pillar: more participatory knowledge societies 

Raising awareness of the wealth of available knowledge requires a mobilization of all 

players in society. 

It should not be limited to identifying what today is conventionally known as “local or 

indigenous of knowledge” or “traditional knowledge” in order to increase their value or 

preserve them. Knowledge societies will not really be worthy of the name unless the greatest 

possible number of individuals can become knowledge producers rather than mere 

consumers of already available knowledge. 

Third pillar: a better integration of knowledge policies 

The diversity of areas in which the changes that make it possible to diagnose the rise of 

knowledge societies has been observed can create a certain amount of confusion that will 

only be dispelled by a better integration of knowledge policies and by a clarification of the 

end goals underpinning the very idea of the ”knowledge society”. 

2. The World of Wisdom: Beyond Knowledge Society 

As we live in a Wide World of Web (WWW) which provides us with a multitude of Data and 

Information which help us build up our world of knowledge, we are bound to ask ourselves 

sincerely what is the meaning of Knowledge Society. What is knowledge for? We can say that 

Knowledge Society is here with us for the Better World. If so, then what is the Better World and 

how can we make the better world a reality? The better world could be where we can expect 

human growth and where human values are searched for and well respected. 

Through some reflections of the concept of “knowledge” I could come up with a 

metaphysical concept of a knowledge society as a tool (or servant) for values and human growth. 

This approach can be summed up with a model of knowledge society: A Humanistic Model as 

compared to A Pragmatic Model of Knowledge Society. A pragmatic approach starts from 

specific actions to be effective in a knowledge society. A pragmatic model of knowledge society 

has been suggested, in a way, by UNESCO in its 2005 publishing Towards a Knowledge Societies in 

the form of 10 recommendations as following for your reminder: 

1. Invest more in quality education for all to ensure equal opportunity 

2. Increase places of community access to information and communication 

technologies 

17



3. Widen the contents available for universal access to knowledge 

4. Develop collaboratories: towards better scientific knowledge sharing 

5. Share environmental knowledge for sustainable development 

6. Making linguistic diversity a priority: the challenges of multilingualism 

7. Move towards knowledge certification on the internet: quality labels 

8. Intensify the creation of partnerships for digital solidarity 

9. Increase women’s contribution to knowledge societies 

10. Measure knowledge: towards knowledge society indicators? 

My Humanistic Model aims at building up a society respecting A Man of Wisdom; he is A Man 

of Liberty (Viewpoint for Liberation), A Man of Higher Viewpoint (New Insights), A Man of 

Healthy Communication, A Man of Self-awareness, A Man of Ideas, A Man of Action, A Man of 

Today, A Man of Humility, A Man of Hope, Faith and Love. In other words, our world of 

Knowledge society should aim for a Balanced Human Growth of individuals with good Value 

Orientation. 

This approach begins with the qualities that philosophers and humanists feel define 

superior human relationships, and from these generalizations it derives specific behaviors that 

should characterize the knowledge society. 

Thus, my key word for the better world is a Man of Wisdom. For this, let me, at the 

outset of this presentation, start off with a fable which you might have been familiar with from 

your early childhood. 

3. An Aesop Fable: 나그네 외투 베끼기 

Once there was a traveler slowly treading down the road in a cold winter day. He was wearing a 

heavy winter coat. A challenging game was suggested between The Sun and The Wind. The 

proposed game was simply: Who can make him easily take off his winter coat? Knowledge tells 

us that it is possible through blowing the strong wind. But, the Wisdom tells us, ‘not by the wind, 

but through good sunshining.’ Who will win? We will see. A Man of Wisdom shows us what a 

wise answer is. The Sun works. 

Throughout our human history, it was Men of Wisdom who have created invaluable 

Classics through communicating with the Nature, and with the Transcendent reality. This 

wisdom works for bringing human hearts get united for humanity. This wisdom creates culture 

18



for peace. This wisdom acts for sharing cultural diversity. Through common sharing of wisdom 

and a higher viewpoint we should be able to build a better world beyond knowledge. 

There are many approaches to the concept of wisdom and insights. Among others, 

however, I have found “cosmopolis,” a Bernard Lonergan’s philosophical plan of communication 

to be most appropriate and relevant to the purpose.1 

II. Humanistic Model of Knowledge Society: 

A Philosophical Plan of Communication for “A Man of Wisdom” 

1. A Man of Wisdom is A Man of Liberty : with a Viewpoint (for Liberation) 

What men and women need -- and what must be communicated among them –- is a viewpoint, 

which is higher than that of common sense. They need a viewpoint from which common sense 

can be criticized, re-oriented, and reintegrated with other finite provinces of meaning. They need 

a viewpoint that liberates them from bias. At the root of development and progress there is 

liberty. 2 This has to be the fundamental aim of education. 

It is a liberty to seek truth wherever it is to be found. It is a freedom to know whatever is 

to be known, to have confidence in reality and to be fearless in loving whatever is truly worthy of 

love. It is a self-knowledge and a self-appropriation which, recognizing the immanent norms of 

cognitional process and forewarned of the tricks bias can play, contemplates the universe with 

wonder and sides with all those who would fashion a social world worthy of men and women. 

2. A Man of Higher Viewpoint (and New Insights) 

Working systematically, liberated minds and hearts would construct a courageous philosophy of 

human nature which would be neither hubristic and reckless nor timid and reductionist. Bernard 

Lonergan sees such a philosophy as implying a vast undertaking of interdisciplinary human 

science. It would be an encyclopedia human science, a truly higher viewpoint. 

1. Bernard Lonergan, A Study of Human Understanding. London: 7th Edition, 1967; and Method in 

Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972. 

2 . John C. Kelly, A Philosophy and Communication. London: Centre for the Study of 

Communication and Culture, 1981. 

19



What is of supreme importance in aiding human beings in knowledge society is, as 

suggested by Kelly, that new insights, timely and fruitful ideas, should, at whatever cost be 

enabled to emerge. It is not enough that they should emerge, however, they must be made 

operative. 

HOW? Through a healthy communication for sharing. 

3. A Man of Healthy Communication: Sharing Meaning and Experiences 

UNESCO’s Towards a Knowledge Societies asks: Might we now have the means to achieve 

equal and universal access to knowledge, and genuine sharing? This should be the 

cornerstone of true knowledge societies, which are a source of human and sustainable 

development. 

Sharing of Deep Meaning 

We live in a world where misunderstanding and mutual incomprehensions are common. 

However, communication can and does succeed among people who are attentive, intelligent, 

reasonable, responsible in searching for meaning and in expressing what they mean. Deep 

meaning is shared by people who are sufficiently aware, alert, critical, and open-hearted. 

Sharing is the beginning of human progress. It should start within a person. 

1) Communication is Sharing Meaning Between People 

We come to the second stage of communication: Communication takes place between man and 

man, between man and his environment, and between man and transcendent reality. 

It is now necessary to give our attention to the different type of persons we have to deal with. 

Alfred Schutz3 distinguishes between the “expert”, “the man-on-the-street”, and “the wellinformed 

citizen.” 

-- The expert: The expert can be thought of as a broadcaster, physicist, scientist, and so on. The 

expert's knowledge is clear and distinct. An expert's judgments and assertions are based upon 

and guaranteed by exact and convincing evidence. An expert cannot allow mere guesswork. 

3. Alfred Schutz. Collected Papers. Vol.1, pp. 207-306, in particular, pp. 321-328. 

20



What an expert communicates as an expert, we expect to be exact, accurate and trustworthy, 

although it may be surprising, disturbing and often hard to understand. 

-- The Man of the Street : At the other extreme from the expert is "the man on the street." This is 

the person who lives by the largely uncriticized typifications and recipes of common sense. Such 

a person has a working knowledge, a pragmatic grasp, of many fields: how to buy and sell, how 

to cope with transportation, how to behave acceptably in a familiar in-group, how to conduct 

oneself at work, and so on. 

The man on the street will know and make use of relevant, socially accepted recipes for 

dealing with typical situations, for choosing typical means from which socially acceptable results 

can be expected. 

-- The Well-informed Citizen: Somewhere between the expert and the man on the street stands 

the well-informed citizen. He claims no expertise. However, he is not always satisfied with the 

vagueness of unclarified views, taken-for-granted convictions and semi-automatic in-group 

recipes for action. He will be aware, reflective, critical and knowledgeable enough to be liberated 

from the sillier kinds of sentimentality and from disruptive outbursts of unbridled passion. 

Clearly, the well-informed citizen is open to the communication of fresh insights. That is 

how he is well-informed. It is the well-informed citizen in all of us who must be encouraged if 

communication is to thrive. Knowledge society can and should find its role as a tool for 

"forming" more well-informed citizens. 

4. A Man of Self-Awareness 

We all wish to know ourselves better. The reason is that we are in control of our thoughts and 

behavior only to the extent we understand ourselves, only to the extent we are aware of ourselves. 

This concept of self-awareness is basic to all forms and functions of communication and is best 

explained by the Johari Window4 presented in Figure 1. 

1) The Concept of Self-Awareness: The Johari Window 

The window is divided into four quadrants, each containing a different self. 

4. Joseph A. DeVito. Communicology: An Introduction to the Study of Communication. NY: Harper & 

Row, Publishers, 1978, pp. 49-62. 

21



Open Self 

Known to self 

Known to others 

Hidden Self 

Known to self 

Not known to others 

Blind Self 

Not known to self 

Known to others 

Unknown Self 

Not known to self 

Not known to others 

Figure 1: The Johari Window. Source: Joseph Luft, Group Processes: An Introduction to Group 

Dynamics (Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press Books,1970), p.11. 

The Open Self: The open self, the first quadrant, represents all the information, behavior, 

attitudes, feelings, desires, motivations, ideas and so on that are known to the self and also 

known to others. 

Each individual’s open self will vary in size depending upon the time and upon the individuals 

he or she is dealing with. Sometimes we are more likely to open ourselves up than at other times. 

In some instances the size of the open self seems directly related to the degree of closeness to the 

individual: we will reveal most to those we are closest to and least to those we are least close to. 

The size of the open self also varies greatly from one individual to another. Some people are 

prone to reveal their innermost desires and feelings while others prefer to remain silent about 

both the significant and the insignificant things in their lives. Most of us, however, open 

ourselves to some people about some things at some times. 

The Blind Self: The blind self represents all those things about ourselves which others know but 

of which we are ignorant. Some people have a very large blind self and seem to be totally obvious 

to their own faults and sometimes (though not as often) their own virtues. 

The Hidden Self: The hidden self contains all that you know of yourself and of others but which 

you keep to yourself. This area includes all your successfully kept secrets about yourself and 

others. At the extremes we have the overdisclosers and the underdisclosers. The overdisclosers 

tell all. The underdisclosers tell nothing. The vast majority of us are somewhere between these 

two extreme. We keep certain things hidden and we disclose certain things. We disclose to some 

people and we do not disclose to others. We are, in effect, selective disclosers. 

22



The Unknown Self: The unknown self represents all that exists but which we nor others know 

about. One could legitimately argue that if neither we nor any one else knows what is in this area, 

we cannot know that it exists at all. Actually, we do not know that it exists but rather we infer 

that it exists. 

2) Implications of the Johari Windows 

Communication is dependent upon the degree to which we open ourselves to others and to 

ourselves. If we do not allow others to know us (that is, if we keep the open self small), 

communication between them and us becomes extremely difficult if not impossible. We can 

communicate meaningfully only to the extent that we know each other and to the extent that we 

know ourselves. To improve communication, we have to work first on enlarging the open self. 

How? Simply by narrowing down the other areas of Blind self and the Hidden self. 

At the individual level, those individuals who have large areas of the open self will be 

more readily inclined to decrease the areas of the unknown self (refer to Figure 2). We can easily 

recall Aristotle’s teaching of the “Know Thyself.” 

through “Others” 

through “Others” 

through “I” 

Open Self 

Hidden Self 


Unknown Self 

through “Me” 

Open Self 

Hidden Self 


Unknown Self 

Figure 2: The Process of Eureka! (for discovering the unknown self) 

It will be an on-going process of sharing with ‘me’ and ‘others’ ; through others, the blind self 

will be decreased and through me, the hidden self will be decreased, Once begun, the process 

will make us better able to search into the areas of the unknown self and thereby to a discovery of 

the self. 

Knowledge societies have a lot to do in helping people come to a better understanding of 

the self. If can help people open themselves if it is ready to open itself first, if it is ready to speak 

the truth, if it is ready to follow the principles of objectivity, and if it is ready to respect the value 

23



of humanity. This exciting challenge is now in the hands of knowledgeable people. They can be 

tools or servants for helping people to come to self-awareness and self-growth. 

5. A Man of Ideas 

Elearnor Roosevelt, born as an orphan and later became the First Lady of the United States, noted 

in her Memoir: There are three types of people; people of small minds, people of average minds, 

and people of great minds. People of small minds tend to discuss people and gossips; people of 

average minds discuss events and issues, but people of great minds discuss Ideas. What we need 

is Ideas for a better world. 

6. A Man of Action 

As I recall once in Australia, a social campaign says: Think It, Talk It, and Act It. This campaign 

seems to remind us of a proverb: “Knowing is one thing, and Doing is another.” In marketing 

world, a constant question is “how to narrow the K-A-P gap. “ Knowledge tends to lead to 

Attitude Change but not easily to Practice. People know much, but tend to take little action. Too 

much gap is found between knowledge and action. How to narrow this gap? “Know-it-byheart”could 

be a first step toward action by hands and feet, not just by words. 知思心言行一致 is 

my word for it”: it is a process of knowing it –thinking it over and over again-until knowing it by 

heart and making it mine, then talk it and act it out. 

7. A Man of Present (Today) 

Eleanor also wrote in her Memoir, that Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is Mystery, and Today is 

a Gift. We say we live for the future. However, by thinking anxiously about the future, they 

forget the present, such that they live in neither the present nor the future. In fact, nobody knows 

what’s going to happen tomorrow. 

Every morning is the beginning of a new day. God has given us this day to use as we will. 

We can waste it or use it for good. What we do today is important, because we are exchanging a 

day of our life for it. When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever, leaving in its place 

something that we have traded for it. We want it to be gain, not loss; good, not evil; success, not 

failure; in order that we shall not regret the price we paid for it. Today is a gift, that’s why it is 

called the present. 

Yesterday (History) is worth for the reflection of the bygone day as a lesson for tomorrow. 

but shouldn’t rely too much on the past. As a poet says, “A thing of the past is a beauty, “ but not 

for relying on it. Today is a practical and valuable present. Be a Man of Present. 

24



8. A Man of Humility: “Humus“ 

We communicate for mutual understanding. This implies we better under+stand, rather than 

upstand or upper+stand for a better understanding of each other. Under standing requires a 

virtue of humility. The word “humility“ comes directly from the Latin “humus“ which has the 

same meaning of “the earth (흙), the ground or the soil. “ Humus thus signifies the position, role, 

and function of earthly soil which is always ready to absorb and embrace everything. Its endless 

tolerance and acceptance create its great power of life-giving to seeds and roots of plants to grow. 

In this context, oriental societies from early days have been teaching us the meaning of 

仙人 ( 人 + 山 : A Wise man or a man who lives at the top of the mountain) and 俗人 ( 人 + 谷 : literally 

means a secular person who lives down deep in the valley, but more specifically referring to a 

snob with his head up, stiff neck and high shoulders). A narrow vision of a man whose life 

boundary has been limited to a deep valley tends to be narrow enough that he thinks he knows 

every corner of the valley as a frog in a well thinks he knows every corner of the well. He is a 

kind of a snobbish person who thinks he knows every corner of the world, showing off a kind of 

arrogancy. On the contrary, a man on the mountain top can see so wide and high enough as to be 

able to humble himself with his head down. Under+standing is a beauty and virtue of Humility. 

9. A Man of Hope, Faith and Love 

Let me quote Reinhold Niebuhr, who observed: 

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by Hope. 

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of 

history; therefore we must be saved by Faith. Nothing we do, however, virtuous, can be 

accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by Love. 

III. Humanistic Model of Knowledge Society for a Better World 

Facilitating Values and Human Growth 

There are many approaches to the concept of human values and human growth. 

Among others, however, I have found Bernard Lonergan's Theory of Value Orientation to be 

most appropriate and relevant to the purpose of this presentation. 

25



1. Lonergan's "Value Orientation" Theory Lonergan's "Value Orientation" Theory5 is based on 

the premise that human life is a process, and that process, from infancy through adulthood, is 

intrinsically a process of growth in human experience, 

A. Persons are historical beings. They are beings in process. 

B. The direction of that process is human development. Growth, Maturation. 

C. This process being with assimilating experience. With each new experience, a person 

becomes more capable of confronting additional experiences, and these experiences 

eventually fall into patterns of experience. 

D. As patterns of experience accumulate, a person beings to Know them. Knowledge then 

develops into patterns of Knowledge. 

E. The accumulation of patterns of Knowledge leads, to understanding, and the more a 

person understands, the more he will be inclined to structure what he understands, 

and then his capacity to discern patterns of judgments. 

F. At this phase of his development, a person begins to formulate values out of the 

patterns of his judgments, these values, in turn, develop into a hierarchy of values 

which is not fixed, but intrinsically open to new experiences, knowledge, 

understanding, values, and so forth. 

G. Lonergan calls this whole process "man's value orientation." To summarize: man, a 

being in process, moves through life with direction. Life for him is a process of growth. 

this growth is characterized by a movement which may be schematized according to 

the following model: 

1. Experience Patterns of Experience 

2. Knowledge Patterns of Knowledge 

3. Understanding Patterns of Understanding 

4. Judgment Patterns of Judgment 

5. Values Hierarchy of Values 

6. Continued openness to new experiences, knowledge, understanding, judgment, and values, 

such that a mature person's hierarchy of values is not fixed, but open to the onrush of life. 

5 Lonergan’s Insight. Op cit., on varlues in genral, pp.596,601-607, and 624-626 

26



Lonergan's theory of value orientation characterizes human life as a continuous process in which 

a person moves through and progressively deepens his experience, knowledge, understanding, 

judgment, values, and hierarchy of value. Experts in knowledge society can help people to 

develop and pursue progressively deeper levels of experience, knowledge, understanding, 

judgment and values, all leading to a mature hierearchy of values. Values emerge from the 

accumulated experience, understanding, and judgments of those better informed citizens. This 

value orientation reflects the aspiration of people to grow as human beings by emphacizing such 

themes and content as: 

a. The greatness and beauty of the human spirit, and human dignity, freedom, and justice. 

b. The meaning of life. 

c. Love and the value of living for others. 

d. Evil understood as evil (an therefore repulsive). 

e. Genuine human happiness, joy, and fulfillment, capable of being realized (not illusary). 

f. Genuine human tragedy, capable of occurring when human beings choose what is evil 

or wrong, or reject what is good or right (realistic tragedy, not artificial or unreal). 

g. Other thematic emphases which correspond to audience aspirations and which at the 

same time reflect and build upon their authentic human experience and values 

orientation." 

These represent a spectrum of values which includes the primary values of service to persons in 

process of human growth and who have profound needs and aspirations. 

2. Human Growth and Ontological Dualism 

I have developed some thoughts in the area of ontological dualism. According to ontological 

dualism, man is both body and spirit. These components are, however, inseparable-they are one. 

The body makes the spirit real, and the spirit gives human life to the body. As the spirit works 

through the body, so does the body through the spirit. 

The body does not move by itself: it moves only when you make up your mind to do so. 

If you are out of your mind, your body simply loses its direction. And you cannot make up your 

mind, if you are out of your consciousness. The mind works through consciousness. The world of 

mind and consciousness works through the soul. But they are one in the spiritual world. This 

27



area, while philosophical, also belongs to another discipline called Theology. However, it is safe 

to say that we must care for both body and mind. The point I would like to make is : human 

growth is a balanced growth of both. 

As the body needs nourishment for its maintenance and growth, so does the spirit: the 

body needs food, the head needs knowledge, the mind and heart need sharing and love, and the 

soul needs WORDS. Man can be metaphysically diagramed as in the figure below: 

Figure 3) Metaphysical Diagram of Man 

Body (needs food for growth) 

Heart (needs love and sharing for growth) 

Mind (needs knowledge for growth) 

` 

Soul (needs Words for growth) 

Intrapersonal Communication 

A person truly grows only with a well-balanced diet of these nourishing foods. We need to strive 

for balanced human growth which is what the concept of the whole person, is all about. We are 

imbalanced if we neglect any one of these dimensions of our lives. They are not separable, and 

they are one in each other. Think of a person who knows a lot (knowledge in the head) with no 

heart (no spirit of sharing and love). Think of a person who knows a lot (knowledge in the head) 

with no heart (no spirit of sharing and love). Think of a person who is healthy (body) but with an 

empty head (short of knowledge). Think of a healthy person who is out of his mind and 

consciousness. What we need in society are good-minded, warmhearted, healthy persons with 

sound value orientations. 

Each one of us goes up and down and even detours in the course of his life, but we need 

a mature value orientation in order to have clear direction as we proceed to achieve our life goals. 

The source of our value orientation is human soul which is neither visible nor changeable. Words 

will nourish the world of the soul and feed its value orientation. 

In reality, however, there is a tendency to give extreme care to the world of body alone, 

while neglecting to care for the world of spirit. Physical pleasure, bodily leisure and comfort tend 

to rule current broadcast programming. We are, indeed, overdosed with entertainment, sports, 

violence, and sex in regular programs, and unhealthy and unethical advertisement. Mass Media 

28



occasionally cares for the growth of knowledge (for the head) with educational and informational 

programs. But media is less inclined to serve the heart, and the heart can grow only by feeding it 

with a spirit of sharing and love. Because society needs men and women for others with hearts 

full of love, it seems to me clear that media and technology should be servant of this need. It can 

serve to help society’s balanced human growth if it is ready to provide well-balanced 

programming, providing not only entertainment, education and information, but also well made 

religion and aesthetic programs. 

A Concluding Remark 

In concluding, I do not want to leave the impression that we are simply doomed to be shaped by 

inexorable social forces and that the situation is hopeless. I would claim that our human 

challenges are sometimes fundamentally at odds with those who have different thoughts and 

attitudes in our society, and the media and technology happen to constitute the arena where the 

matter is going to be resolved. It is a unique opportunity. It will take clear thinking, hard work 

and a good deal of faith, hope and love. But it is our duty: each one of us is called to make our 

personal contribution. Our future lives are at stake; I can think of no more exciting challenge. 

29

[ 국문요약문] 지식사회의 바람직한 인간상: 

지혜로운 세상을 향해 

[ ] 

지식사회의 바람직한 인간상 


( ) 

Ⅰ. 

1. 『』 

: 2005 

? 

(1) ? 

, , . 

. 

, 

. . 

. 

3 , 

. 

. 

. 

. 

(2) 

, 

, 

, 

, 

. 

. 

. 

2. : 

. 

? 

. 

. 

. 2005 『 

』(Towards a Knowledge Societies) 10 

30



. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. : 

5. 

6. : 

7. : 

8. 

9. 

10. : ? 

. 

. 

3. 

? , . 

. 

. 

. 

Ⅱ. : ‘ ’ 

1. ( ) . 

. . 

. . 

2. ( ) 

. 

. 

3. : 

. 

. . ( 

) . 

: . 

. . 

: ‘ man of the street’ . 

31



. . 

: . 

. , , 

. 

. 

. 

. 

4. 

- 

- 

. 

. Johari Window . 

: . . 

: 

: , 

: 

. 

. 

. ‘ ’ ‘ ’ . 

. 

. 

. 

5. 

. 

6. 

? ‘ ’ . 

. 

7. ( ) 

. . 

. 

8. 

. 

(under stand) . . humility 

humus . . 

32



9. 

, . 

. 

. . 

. . 

Ⅲ. 

1. (Lonergan) ‘ ’(Value Orientation) 

, . 

a. b. ( ) c. 

. d. 

e. 

, , f. 

. 

. , , , 

g. ‘ ’ . 

. . - - - - - 

. 

, , , 

. 

2. 

. 

. . 

, , 

, (words) . . 

. , 

. , , 

. 

, 

. . 

. , 

. 

. . . 

. 

33

더 많은 민주주의: 그 완성을 위하여 

Towards the Realization of More Democracy 


Mr. PARK Won Soon, 

Executive Director of the Hope Institute 

Democracy 

One of the essential features of modern democracy will be its participatory nature, in which 

citizens play the role of being a stakeholder in this society. Sovereign power resides in the 

people. 

Theoretically, it seems connected and closer to the democracy that existed in the 

ancient city-states. However, modern cities are obviously much, much bigger in scale and 

societies are much more complex than ancient ones. Accordingly, modern democracy is very 

different from the ancient model and needs to be administered in a more judicious manner. 

As we all know, today’s representative democracy has come about as a result of many 

historical struggles and reactions since the time of the ancient and more direct model of 

democracy. Are mainstream modern representative democracies and the politicians who 

administer them truly democratic? To this question, not many people would answer, ‘Yes.’ 

Representative democracy necessarily causes problems of agency. In other words, 

system mangers (politicians), who are supposed to be loyal servants and accountable to 

society’s stakeholders i.e. the citizens, tend to pursue their own interests above all else while 

maintaining the pretence that they are acting of behalf of the people. Moreover, these ‘public 

servants’ often betray their own citizens. In most cases politicians will formulate policies and 

structures that are advantageous to them selves, even though such policies are ostensibly for the 

benefit of the citizen stakeholder. 

This kind of problem arises when there is no mechanism by which citizens can express 

their true feelings and opinions on particular issues. Although citizens can criticize their 

representatives even if they do not thoroughly know all the details of a particular issue, it is 

very difficult for them to participate directly to change or solve any problem or wrongdoing. 

Thus, political representatives can easily distort or manipulate the opinions of citizens, and as 

these types of problems accumulate and grow in severity our dissatisfaction with today’s 

representative democracy mounts. 

The evolution to a more participatory democracy will reflect a truer meaning and 

fuller realization of the democratic concept. With the more direct participation of people, innate 

interests and conflicts among people must be managed and resolved in a more direct and timely 

manner. This process of direct participation can now begin since various innovative media 

34



systems have been developed that have revolutionized information communication technology. 

Participatory democracy will create the opportunity for citizens to directly act in the affairs of 

the state. 

Ladies and gentlemen, now let’s take a look around the world at some two hundred 

and twenty countries and the democratic conditions that exist in them. It is difficult to gauge 

how many countries respect and implement the true tenets of political democracy. If we exclude 

a few developed countries, I believe substantive democracy is not practiced in an absolute 

majority of countries. Today’s meeting provides us with a wonderful opportunity to recognize 

the seriousness of this reality and to discuss and search for solutions to improve the situation. 

Our demand for democracy has been very firm throughout recent history. However, 

there must be many reasons and contexts that help explain and understand why democracy did 

not flourish and bloom in the past. We must learn what these obstacles to true democracy were 

and still are and find ways to eliminate them. 

In the case of the Republic of Korea, it can be considered a nation that achieved 

democracy in a relatively short period of time. People have different opinions on our 

democracy: some say that democracy in Korea is more formal than substantive. 

Upon examining the situation here more closely, we can see there are still many 

democratic habits that we should learn and apply. Although formal characteristics of a 

democracy exist such as freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary, and a democratic 

voting system, the spirit of a true democracy often seems to be missing in our lack of generosity 

to one another and the sectarian and partisan nature of political debates. 

Now, in 2006, we can still all too easily see undemocratic elements that are dominant 

in some areas and in some societies. Such a situation is often more easily observed in the 

provinces, so attempts to promote a truer democratic system should focus on this problem. 

Globally, democracy in developed countries is more advanced than in less developed 

countries. Also, within in a nation, the further from large cities a region is, the more 

undemocratic aspects will be widespread. 

This pattern seems to exist throughout the world. Thus, the UN and all NGO’s should 

voluntarily promote campaigns for the expansion of substantive democracy. 

Media 

Historically, the media has played a useful public role in promoting the development of 

democracy and this constructive contribution must be continued. As we all know, the true 

purpose of the media is to criticize and monitor centers of power. Creating a genuine sense of 

solidarity between people is also important. The media can also raise awareness and moral 

sensitivity among the public. If the media fulfils these roles of providing information so that 

35



citizens can engage in informed debates and also provides constructive critical analysis of issues 

and policies, the media is an essential element in the development of democracy. 

However, the nature of the media is changing and the media these days is very 

different from that which existed in the past. These days the media is primarily concerned with 

the pursuit of profits and higher circulation or viewing figures. Accordingly the contents and 

quality of news coverage has declined. 

In the past, the media represented the opinions and views of a wide cross section of 

society and tended to promote and support progressive social causes such as social justice, but 

today’s media often reflects the prejudices and narrow interests of particular media moguls or a 

particular social class. 

As a result, its historical role as a promoter of democracy and champion of progressive 

issues has been compromised and severely weakened. Instead the media often acts as the 

mouthpiece for the government or powerful vested interests even if this means a reluctance or 

deliberate unwillingness to expose lies or to distinguish between ideological dogmas and the 

facts. Hence a great disservice is done to democracy. If this trend continues the historical 

foundations upon which the media was based – objectivity, fairness and a readiness to 

challenge government claims - and its credibility will be shattered in the minds of citizens. 

Of course, there are still grounds for optimism. The Internet’s cyber space has created a 

public space in which information can flow freely and unrestricted and citizens can engage in 

democratic debate as equals. The appearance of these independent and alternative media 

outlets demonstrates that we have tools and possibilities to build a new democratic public order, 

transcending time and space. The spread of the Internet has a revolutionary potential to help in 

the successful development of participatory democracy. 

The Internet is an effective tool that can strengthen the right of freedom of expression 

of individuals and disperse information that is critical for informed debate and choices. Thus, 

cyber space will be a new platform for public debate and a new mechanism by which to 

evaluate public opinion. To secure a channel through which people can participate in a 

democracy is as meaningful as the voting system because it maintains the procedural justice of 

modern democracy. 

We must pay attention to and appreciate the new and unlimited possibilities that a 

novel media outlet like the Internet provides. For example, an interactive real-time messenger 

and a multiple chatting service are important since these services have no frontiers, barriers or 

restrictions. Because these technologies will enable us to directly participate in any activity or 

debate whenever we want, we should definitely cultivate and value the Internet in order to help 

realize a participatory democracy. Depending on how real-time information is shared and how 

the power of multiple public opinion forums are used, we can expect to see its positive effects 

on democracy. 

36



Accordingly, if the existing media order is not democratic, and not for the public good, 

the birth and distribution of alternative media will rapidly increase. 

In terms of the freedom of the press and the quality of media coverage, the Korean 

media has not yet reached the global standard, but it is continuously developing. At the 

moment, it is very disappointing to see how small a force the media is for the public good. 

There is still hope for the existing media. I’m raising these concerns and questions 

about the media because I still believe that any organization can reform itself if the will exists 

and its members are serious about reforming the organization. All of my statements are based 

on a fundamental belief and hope in the media. 

Civil Society 

I belong to a citizen group. I believe our organization – an NGO - is socially committed to the 

development of a truer and richer form of democracy in the 21st century. We find the 

meaning of life and our true purpose in dealing with those issues and topics that are 

deliberately ignored or untouched by governments or by the media. 

Although NGOs are fitting and proper institutions to lead the campaign for the 

development of a democratic society, a lot depends on whether NGOs have the ability to 

strengthen them selves. For instance, nowadays, Korean NGOs are studying hard and keenly 

learning how to strengthen their abilities. In many present societies a lot of people pursue their 

own selfish agendas in an insensitive and aggressive manner without any concern for other 

people or the public good. A participatory democratic society is different. Citizen groups try to 

carry out reforms for the good of everyone. Therefore, a more thorough and accurate 

understanding and the development of more advanced analytical concepts and theories are 

required to understand this phenomenon. 

While developed countries more often offer more and better opportunities to their 

citizens to live in a democratic society, developing countries often do not. We can perceive that 

the more advanced countries are, the better will be the democracy that they have. Therefore, 

we need to assess the correlations between the activities and nature of citizen groups, 

developed countries, and democracy in general and their connections and causal relationships 

(the sequence of cause and effect). Isn’t it a great topic for a thesis? 

Some assert that there is a relationship, but, unfortunately, we could not find any 

analysis with strong evidence pointing to this. I hope we will find practical and effective ways 

to broaden, deepen and strengthen practical democracy after doing these kinds of careful and 

skillful researches. We need more researches on which particular method is suited to helping to 

develop a certain nation’s democracy. 

Active support, cooperation and assistance toward developing countries, and the 

37



necessity of being in solidarity with them are gradually increasing among the NGOs from the 

major developed countries. The NGOs also provide goods, resources, and voluntary services to 

poor countries. These activities will be a huge help to developing nations to protect human 

rights and to reform social regimes. Moreover, NGO activities will be the foundation of 

constructing a global community. 

NGOs from the Republic of Korea have been playing a major role in improving 

democracy and will continue to be an important element in this equation. But if NGOs do not 

continue to invent innovative strategies in the future, they will not be able to serve as the 

backbone of democracy for long. From a broader and more long-term perspective, Korean 

NGOs should be more active in world. 

Conclusion 

A stable democracy, from a political, social and cultural perspective, is a goal that everyone 

should pursue. From this point of view, the roles of the media and citizen groups are essential. 

The realization of a true and substantive democracy rather than a purely formal or legal one 

requires the development of a new ideology or way of thinking. 

Since the media and citizen groups assume central positions in the development of 

democracy, they can divide and share positions as partners in a common, cooperative effort. 

Also, the two institutions must support each other to contribute to social improvement. 

There are both merits and demerits with the increase in online and off-line media, and 

of numerous NGO activities. New realities and conditions closely connected to this diversity 

will appear; however, there will also be a negative tendency, because of competition, to place 

emphasis on form rather than content and quality. In order to understand and guard against 

these possible negative and destructive features, we must be unbiased and conduct in-depth 

studies, the results of which can be applied in a practical and effective way. As a result of these 

researches, we should be able to suggest alternatives. NGOs and the press need to have a 

productive and sensitive relationship. 

This all relates to the reasons why the Hope Institute was founded. Why don’t we 

name the goals of the Hope Institute ‘responsible criticism’ and ‘suggestions for alternatives?’ 

Now is the time for us to seriously think about the relations a true democracy will have with the 

media. When two different streams meet, introducing a stable democracy into the political 

system and existing culture is possible. 

Lastly, I hope many ideas for the development of democracy will be generated and the 

moral roles of the media will be discussed in today’s seminar. 

Thank you. 

38

[ 국문요약문] 더 많은 민주주의, 

그 완성을 위하여 

[ ] 

더 많은 민주주의 


( ) 

‘ ’ . 

( ) 

. 

, , . 

. 

, , 

, . 

. 

. 

, 

. 

. 

. 

. 

220 , 

. 

. 

, 

, . 

, (habits) 

. , , 

, , 

. , 

, . 

. (NGO) 

. 

39



. 

. 

. 

. , 

, . 

. 

, 

, 

. , 

, , 

. 

. 

, . 

‘ (procedural 

justice)’ . 

, . 

. , 

, . . 

NGO . 

. , , 

, , 

. NGO , , 

. , 

. 

, NGO . 

, . 

. ․ 

40



NGO 

. NGO . 

, 

. 

. 

41

대안미디어의 전 세계적 상황과 민주주의 발전 

Alternative Media and Democracy in the Contemporary Global Context 

Alternative Media and Democracy 

in the Contemporary Global Context 

John D.H. Downing 

Global Media Research Center 

College of Mass Communication and Media Arts 

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, USA 

Introduction: Some Definitions 

I would like to thank UNESCO Korea and all the organizers of this conference for making it 

happen, and for their invitation to me to speak. As those who know me know only too well, I 

have a passion for defining my terms, so let me begin by defining “democracy” and “alternative 

media.” 

Democracy is a word with multiple senses. Tragically, it has recently been dragged 

through the mud by a U.S. Administration and corporate class who have claimed democracy as 

their #1 global export, especially to Iraq. And continue to do so, despite having generated a civil 

war that permits them to maintain their military presence in the region for the foreseeable future, 

because, they now claim, it would be irresponsible to leave while civil war is raging, and also 

unfair to the U.S. troops who have died there in the Administration’s noble cause. 

Since I come from the United States, I feel obliged to insist up front that whatever 

democracy means, in my view it is not THAT. It is not exportable, it is not a uniquely American 

product, and indeed the American version, where such a relatively small proportion of the public 

votes and where the two major parties stand for office, not principle, is as flawed as any. 

My vote is for what Benjamin Barber some twenty years ago (Barber 1984) called “strong 

democracy,” as opposed to the notion of “the strong [authoritarian] state,” the state that 

luminaries such as J. Edgar Hoover and Dick Cheney, Syngman Rhee and Chun Doo Hwan, 

would like to dance in. Formal democratic procedures only go part way to enabling a strong 

democracy, a democracy responsive to the general public. I am not discounting the importance of 

democratic procedures, despite the fact they will always be flawed in one way or another. 

42



Governance must proceed by some agreed rules. But the widespread decay of traditional political 

parties and the decline of labor unions in many countries, points us ever more in the direction of 

social movements as agents of constructive change, as expressions of democracy in action, a 

democracy that is not just a slogan. 

We live, of course, in the real world, a deeply flawed one. There is nothing magical about 

social movements, nothing even automatically progressive. Nazism began as a social movement. 

The reactionary version of Islam espoused by the Iranian regime since 1979 began as a social 

movement. In some parts of the USA at present, there are movements to deny undocumented 

workers any rights, not just state laws. Nonetheless, the global social justice movements, the 

environmentalist movements, the feminist movements, the labor movements, the movements for 

civil rights and for human rights, from Burma to Bolivia and from Iran to Israel, constitute – 

whether they are weak or strong – the nearest to a democratic global force that currently exists. 

Yes, there are divisions within and between them, disorganization, debacles. This is Earth, not 

Mercury. But if the hunt is on for actually existing democracy, as opposed to its calcified official 

versions, I know of nowhere else to look other than social movements. 

Naturally, there are groups and individuals within traditional political parties, labor 

unions, local and national government, international bodies, and still other organizational 

formats, who are movement-oriented and can play helpful, even crucial roles. I am not arguing a 

Manichean/White Hats-Black Hats position. But the independent energy and initiative of 

progressive social movements is the nub of the matter (as it also is with reactionary social 

movements). 

Social movements themselves, I recognize, are a hugely complicated phenomenon, and 

there is a vast research literature now on them, but one with which I cannot engage in the space 

of this paper.1 

Alternative media I can define much more briefly, in line with my existing work 

(Downing 2001): I have an expansive definition, which covers the simplest or at least cheapest 

techniques, such as graffiti, dance, political jokes, street theatre, popular song, all the way 

through to technologically complex formats such as video and the internet. In other words, I have 

1. I refer those interested in pursuing my current analysis of media and social movements to a 

conference paper I presented at the Media Change and Social Theory conference at St Hugh’s 

College, Oxford, in early September (Downing 2006), and to my essay on alternative media in 

the global anti-apartheid, Falun Gong and Hindutva movements (Downing 2005). 

43



no patience with the limitations conventionally placed upon the term “media” to denote merely 

broadcasting, print and cinema, or with the artificial division between arts and media.2 

Some Current Approaches to Alternative Media and Democracy: a Critique 

I wish to pass now to a critique of some prominent writers on these matters. They are Michael 

Hardt and Toni Negri, and Geert Lovink. I will focus on the most recent book by Hardt and 

Negri, Multitude: war and democracy in the age of Empire (2004),3 and on various essays by 

Lovink (2002) in which he deploys the term “tactical media.” I have selected them precisely 

because they have recently become somewhat iconic among democracy and global justice 

movement activists, but I shall argue that their analyses largely offer an unproductive dead end 

to the search for global social justice and democracy. 

In their Preface to Multitude, Hardt & Negri repeatedly emphasize the centrality of the 

communication process. The write of “new circuits of cooperation and collaboration that stretch 

across nations and continents and allow an unlimited number of encounters… [permitting us to] 

discover the commonality that enables us to communicate and act together…an open and 

expansive network in which all differences can be expressed freely and equally…so that we can 

work and live in common” (op.cit., xiii-xiv). A little further on they write that “the challenge 

posed by the concept of multitude is for a social multiplicity to manage to communicate and act 

in common while remaining internally different” (ibid., xiv). 

On the next page they argue as follows: (1) “Our communication, collaboration, and 

cooperation are not only based on the common, but they in turn produce the common in an 

expanding spiral relationship” (ibid., xv); and (2) “The multitude, in contrast to the bourgeoisie 

and all other exclusive, limited class formations, is capable of forming society autonomously; this, 

we will see, is central to its democratic possibilities” (ibid., xvii-xviii). 

What does all this mean? Now granted, they present their book as a work in philosophy 

(ibid., xvi), so detailed analysis of strategies and tactics is not its purpose. Nonetheless, if 

2. Since 2000 the research literature on social movement media has grown fast. As well as sources 

cited below, see for example Gumucio Dagron (2001); Granjon 2001; Atton 2001 & 2005; Meikle 

2002; Couldry & Curran 2003; Opel & Pompper 2003; Geerts et al., 2004; Vitelli and Rodríguez 

Esperón 2004; O’Connor 2004; Van De Donk et al., 2004; De Jong et al., 2005; Rennie 2006. 

3. For a critique of their book Empire, see Downing 2004. 

44



philosophy is to achieve its proper goal, then a term such as “communication” should not be 

something they allow to float freely in the breeze without exploration or definition. 

However, this is precisely what they do. Media are referenced for a couple of pages (ibid., 

286-287), but solely in relation to mainstream media coverage of the Seattle confrontations of late 

1999 and of subsequent challenges to capitalist globalization summits. 

More generally, “communication” and what they term “the common” are jointly 

referenced just a handful of times. On page 204 they assert 

“…singularity rights…are produced by the common, in social 

communication, and in turn they produce the common…The 

common… is based on the communication among singularities 

and emerges through the collaborative social processes of 

production.” (Their emphasis.) 

On pages 213-214, they assert that 

“Extensively, the common is mobilized in communication from 

one local struggle to another… the geographical expansion of 

movements takes the form of an international cycle of struggles 

in which revolts spread from one local context to another like a 

contagious disease through the communication of common 

practices and desires… In each of these… the common that is 

mobilized extensively and communicates across the globe is not 

only the commonly recognized enemy – such as slavery, 

industrial capital, or colonial regimes – but also common 

methods of combat, common ways of living, and common 

desires for a better world.” (Their emphasis.) 

And finally on pages 349-350 they argue that 

“Production based on cooperation and communication makes 

perfectly clear how… communication cannot take place without 

a common basis, and the result of communication is a new 

common expression. The production of the multitude launches 

the common in an expanding, virtuous spiral.” 

45



This is, frankly, a 21st century rendition of Marx’s distinction, when writing of French farmers 

150 years ago in his 18th Brumaire, between eine Klasse in sich (a class in itself), and eine Klasse 

für sich (a class for itself). Furthermore, Hardt & Negri are as opaque as Marx himself in 

analyzing the actual processes of the transformation of collective consciousness beyond the 

inexorable force of economic process. They argue that the “multitude” is not the proletariat, but 

the resonance between Marx’s formulation and theirs is overwhelming. Moreover, their mode of 

‘doing philosophy’ in these quotations is somewhere between rhetorical and tautological: 

communication and the common are locked together in a mystical parthenogenesis that would 

leave even the Virgin Mary stunned and speechless. 

One final index of their terminal vagueness on this crucial issue that demands comment 

is their failure to register the significance of the planet’s multiple languages in the global 

communication process they claim to be underway. “Communication” for them appears to be a 

magical emergent process. The ever-increasing research literature on social movement media of 

all kinds is simply not referenced. And their blithe unconcern with language in the 

communication process is splendidly illustrated by their claim (ibid., 83) that “Reliable 

information about the Intifada is scarce,” upon which they cite two English-language sources. 

Because they, and I, do not read Arabic, Hebrew, and quite possibly Turkish or Farsi, does not 

automatically mean that reliable information is scarce! The language issue is critical. 

I have spent time on this critique precisely because their books Empire and Multitude 

have been massively translated and in some global social justice circles have achieved an almost 

sacral status. Yet there is a deafening silence at the heart of their argument which risks robbing 

social movements of what they most need, namely very careful reflection on all forms of media 

communication, movement and mainstream, by skating at warp speed right past them. 

Geert Lovink’s “An insider’s guide to tactical media” (Lovink 2002a: 254-274) at first 

sight looks as though it might be one way of writing the chapter I have argued is conspicuously 

missing from Hardt and Negri’s Multitude. Lovink, by contrast, is buried in communication 

practice and analysis, though mostly in the forms of net activism. His work is also very 

frequently referenced among media and net activists, though perhaps not quite so much as Hardt 

and Negri. His stance and Critical Art Ensemble’s are very similar, so I will discuss both through 

a discussion of Lovink. 

How does he define “tactical media”? He writes that the 

“notion of tactical media is inclusive. It is a delicate coalition, a 

living experiment, not a recipe… a deliberately slippery term, a 

tool for creating ‘temporary consensus zones’ based on 

46



unexpected alliances… hackers, artists, critics, journalists and 

activists… Tactical media retain mobility and velocity” (op.cit., 

268, 271)… “What circulates are models and rumors, arguments 

and experiences of how to organize cultural and political 

activities, get projects financed, infrastructure up and running 

and create informal networks of trust which makes living in 

Babylon bearable” (254). 

Lovink writes in a very motile, breathless style, which makes summarization of his argument 

quite difficult. Overall, however, his essay is a pitch for getting away from reliance on what he 

terms a mainstream media model and also away from the “counter-information” media model 

popular in social movements of the 1970s and 1980s. He argues, we need to leave behind the 

empty certainties of the Soviet era, to “break out from the sub-cultural ghetto,” and to reclaim 

“imagination and fantasy” (ibid., 254, 264, 271). Rather than stable forms of organization or any 

form of doctrinal purity, both which he regards as being globally in crisis, he envisages a 

constantly shifting set of networked media activities, characterized by 

“playful negativism, a nihilism on the run, never self-satisfied… 

an ever-changing strategy game of building infrastructures and 

then leaving them when the time has come to leave the self built 

castles and move onwards” (ibid., 259-260). 

If I had to characterize Lovink’s essay, it would be to say that he alternates unpredictably – and 

unprofitably - between being grounded and living in a rhetorical miasma. For example, when 

grounded he acknowledges the importance of the specific situation of the city of Amsterdam in 

forming his experience (ibid., 256), with its “local TV, pirate radios, digital cities and fortresses for 

new and old media.” In an adjoining essay on the Adilkno media project, he describes the city as 

“this self-willed free state, international home and operations base of hippies, queers, the 

unemployed, arts and tourists… [with] no noteworthy industry… home to neither the 

government nor the national media… [and with] enough space to experiment without anyone 

breathing down one’s neck” (Lovink 2002b: 276). He plainly acknowledges here the extent to 

which his proposals for alternative media activism are significantly based on one particular 

location, an important caution which should rein in his generalizations. His categorization 

47



(Lovink 2002a: 266-267) of net activism into internal networking, external networking, and 

interventions based upon internet activity, is also perfectly sober. 

When ungrounded, however, there is little or no holding him, as the quotations above 

indicate. One final one may serve to clinch my point: “With history in overdrive, narratives can 

be picked up from every street corner. Postmodernity is no longer a strategy or style, it is the 

natural condition of today’s network society” (ibid., 259). 

So Where Should We Look for Insight? 

In the final part of this presentation, I shall comment briefly on a number of issues that face us as 

we seek to understand our options for developing strong media as integral to strong democracies 

– and please note that I say “democracies” in the plural! In order, the issues are: (a) the 

relationship between movements to reform mainstream media, and social movement media; (b) 

the relation between information and imagination; (c) the relation between internet and cell 

phone mobilization tactics, and social movement media; (d) the centrality of popularizing science 

and technology; and (e) the issue of scale. 

(a) Media Reform and Movement Media. The Media Reform movement in the USA is a relatively 

recent phenomenon, but at its conferences every 18 months pulls in some 1500-1800 participants 

from all over the USA. For the time being, it is a surprisingly strong presence, and it is likely that 

the high frustration over mainstream media failures regarding Iraq war coverage, amongst many 

other issues, has channeled into its activities. Its goals are to pressurize the U.S. Congress and 

huge communication firms such as TimeWarner, News Corp, Viacom and Microsoft toward 

much greater open-ness and competitiveness, and in general to promote a strong public service 

and nonprofit media sector. There are similar movements in evidence in other nations, including 

Thailand and the Philippines. Often included among leading campaigners are seasoned 

professional journalists who have been gravely alienated over their careers by the restrictions and 

distortions imposed by media owners. 

The relation between this type of movement and social movement media is sometimes 

pointlessly dismissive on both sides. For some mainstream media reformers, social movement 

media only divert energies away from where the action really is, and social movement media 

activists can easily be found who simply reverse that optic. 

In response, I would urge two considerations. Firstly, the media scene is practically 

nowhere so bright and encouraging, whether in mainstream or alternative media, that we can 

48



afford to dismiss any attempts on any level to improve it. Both kinds of pressure and activism are 

valid and valuable, and jointly serve to stimulate a more insistent and media-savvy public. The 

media literacy movement, especially strong in Germany, but also in some other nations, is a 

further important push in that direction. 

Secondly, though, it is important to recall that there are standard dangers for both camps. 

Mainstream media reformers always risk putting so much energy into saving or extending 

existing public service sector media that they lose sight of their steady deterioration into timidity 

and commercialism (especially visible in the cases of PBS in the USA and of the BBC). Social 

movement media activism, by contrast, always risks becoming satisfied with a copacetic ghetto, 

and precisely because it typically relies on volunteer energy, of excluding large bodies of citizens 

who have little spare time on their hands. Especially for endless meetings. 

The four remaining topics can be dealt with very rapidly. 

(b) Information and imagination. Much of the energy in all the wings of these movements, media 

literacy included, often arises out of activists’ frustration with the poverty of journalism as 

practiced. Unfortunately this often leads to the “counter-information” philosophy of social 

movement media, where the solution to political impasse is defined as simply getting the “right” 

information out in response to mainstream media deceptions and failings. While there is value 

and even necessity in this kind of media activism, it not only suffers from being overly reactive, 

taking its priorities from the agents of disinformation, but it presumes everyone is a “newsjunkie,” 

only waiting for the truth in order to explode into political activism. Not only is this a 

fantasy, but it veers toward excluding the imaginative and emotive dimensions of culture, 

rendering us as reasoning machines rather than as reasoning-and-feeling-and imagining-humans. 

(c) Mobilization, internet and movement media. There has been considerable commentary over the 

past 3-4 years, beginning to some degree with Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs (2002), and 

continuing through to Yochai Benkler’s recent The Wealth of Networks (2006), on the mobilizing 

potential of internet communication options. Move-On’s successes in mobilization against the 

war on Iraq late in 2002, and before that the meteoric ascendancy of Democratic Party U.S. 

presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2000, were only some of the indices that seemed to some 

to suggest we were in a radically new era. 

My suggestion is that this is only partly so, and that those two cases, and others, 

probably indicate the problem of what I might term, riffing off Peter Sellers’ Chauncey Gardiner 

character in the film Being There (dir. Hal Ashby, 1979), shallow roots and easy gardening. That 

49



is to say, both those campaigns had astonishingly quick results but also astonishingly temporary 

ones. It is all too easy to sign an internet petition. No reason for not doing so, but to continue with 

the agricultural metaphor, a sudden spurt of mushrooms likely will not survive the midday sun. 

The steady operations of social movement media and of face-to-face exchange have in no way 

been rendered vapid by the listserv or the cell phone “swarm.” 

(d) Popularizing science and technology. From pharmaceuticals to fertilizers, from pesticides to 

petroleum, and from genetic engineering to ubiquitous computing, the public’s need for 

digestible, reliable explanation and advice on technology dilemmas and issues has never been 

greater. This is a whole dimension of the failure of most mainstream media – in the anglophone 

world The Economist and The Christian Science Monitor are exceptions – as well as movement 

media. Some environmentalist movement media are also exceptions, but the centrality of these 

matters to our basic ability to evaluate masses of public policies is beyond dispute. Yet we are 

mostly left intellectually disenfranchised – and once more, imaginative methods of conveying the 

subject-matter are urgently required. 

(e) So, lastly, to scale. One of the enduring shibboleths regarding social movement media is that 

they are irrelevant because so often ephemeral and small circulation. This is a clumsy conceptual 

error, presuming that the only modes in which media play a social role are to be found where 

there are huge media like TimeWarner or Disney. To take the most obvious counter-example, 

social movement media are usually critical to the focus of the movement in question. Their 

audience/readership is not composed of couch-potatoes, but of energized activists, a radically 

different social formation. 

In riposte to this, I would direct attention to Clemencia Rodríguez’ splendid book 

Fissures in the Mediascape (2001), where among her case-studies is one of a group of women in a 

poor neighborhood in Bogotá. They developed a local video project, and in the process 

developed a greatly expanded alertness to their own capabilities, in Amartya Sen’s sense of that 

word (Sen 1999). They gained a sense of self-worth and self-confidence through finding out that 

they could successfully use the technology of video, that their accent and dialect “worked” even 

though it was not “pure” Castilian Spanish, and that their lives and experiences were validated 

by being recorded and then screened for the neighborhood. They never wished to broadcast to all 

of Bogotá, let alone the whole of Colombia. Their goal was local and entirely valid in those terms. 

Furthermore, a number of them became community activists in part due to this experience of selfempowerment. 

50



In other words, judging alternative media impact solely by measuring the vastness of its 

coverage is akin to judging nanotechnologies by their size and finding them to be failures. The 

research question is wrongly framed. The issue of scale is often vital to organizing sensible 

research into social movement media. The local and small-scale do not equal the irrelevant. 

Bibliography 

Atton, Chris. 2001. Alternative Media. London: Sage Publications Co. 

––----–. 2005. An Alternative Internet: Radical Media, Politics and Creativity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh 


Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and 

Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Couldry, N., and Curran, J. eds. 2003. Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked 

World. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 

De Jong, Wilma, Martin Shaw, and Neil Stammers, eds. 2005. Global Activism, Global Media. 

London: Pluto Press. 

Downing, John D. H. 2001. Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

------------. 2004 “Empire, War and Antiwar Media,” in Mehdi Semati, ed., New Frontiers in 

International Communication Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 

------------. 2005 “Activist Media, Civil Society and Social Movements,” in Wilma De Jong, Martin 

Shaw, and Neil Stammers, eds., Global Activism, Global Media. London: Pluto Press. 

------------. 2006. “Social Movement Theories and Alternative Media: an Evaluation and Critique,” 

presented to the Media Theory and Social Change conference, St Hugh’s College, Oxford, 

September 6-8, 2006. 

Geerts, A., V. van Oeyen, and C. Villamayor. eds. 2004. La Práctica Inspira: La Radio Popular y 

Comunitaria Frente al Nuevo Siglo. Quito: Associación Latinoamericana de Educación 

Radiofónica. 

Granjon, Fabien. 2001. L’Internet Militant: Mouvement Social et Usage des Réseaux Télématiques. 

Paris: Éditions Apogée. 

Gumucio Dagron, Alfonso. 2001. Making Waves. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. 

51



Hardt, Michael, and Toni Negri. 2004. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New 

York: Penguin Books. 

Lovink, Geert. 2002a. Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

-----------. 2002b. “Organized Innocence and War in the New Europe: Adilkno, Culture, and the 

Independent Media,” in Lovink 2002a, 276-295. 

Meikle, Graham. 2002. Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet. London: Routledge. 

O’Connor, Alan, ed. 2004. Community Radio in Bolivia: The Miners’ Radio Stations. Lewiston, 

Queenston, and Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press. 

Opel, Andy, and Donnalyn Pompper, eds. 2004. Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience, 

and the Global Justice Movement. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Rennie, Ellie. 2006. Community Media: AGeneral Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Rheingold, Howard. 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Revolution. New York: Basic Books. 

Rodríguez, Clemencia. 2001. Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media. 

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books. 

van de Donk, Wim, Brian Loader, Paul Nixon, and Dieter Rucht, eds. 2004. Cyberprotest: New 

Media, Citizens and Social Movements. London: Routledge. 

52

[국문요약문] 전 지구적 맥락에서의 대안 미디어와 민주주의 

[ ] 

전 지구적 맥락에서의 대안 미디어와 민주주의 

53


54


55


56


57




Part I. Philosophical and Ideological Approaches 

• “Internet, Public Sphere and Democracy” 

Prof. YOON Young-Tae, ROK 

• “Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Age” 

Prof. GUAN Shijie, China 

• “Democracy and Communication Are Two Sides of the Same 

Coin” Mr. Zahid Hussein, Pakistan 

• “Media Ethics in the Immature Democracies” 

Prof. SON Bong-ho, ROK 


인터넷, 공론장으로서의 철학적 함의와 민주주의 발전 

Internet, Public Sphere and Democracy 


Prof. Young-Tae Yoon 

Dongeui University, ROK 

Introduction 

Understanding communication and the media in the society, which is based on the democratic 

decision-making procedure, needs appreciation of the fields of culture and politics as well as the 

field of economy. The reason is that the media has great influence on the democratic system when 

considering that every people could have opportunities to participate the process of solving the 

conflicted interests in the open-field. Hence, the matter of media is the same as one of democracies 

(Prokop, 2001). 

Compared to the traditional mass media, the Internet in the modern society is another type 

of the media. That is why the Internet has been become hot-issue. Furthermore, the Internet can be 

a medium for ‘participation’, ‘subculture’, ‘arbitration of media competence’ and ‘authentic and 

alternative public sphere’. Other opportunities for the ‘authentic democracy’ shaped by the Internet 

could be essential factors to support the legitimacy of the new media technology in this modern 

society (Welz, 2002). If we regard the Internet as a simple technical platform, such a realistic 

possibility could be more positive. However, we can not stipulate the Internet as not worth a rush if 

we could consider the Internet as possibilities and these social possibilities. Is it possible to produce 

an alternative public sphere through the Internet? If so, what is the condition for it? Unless it is, is 

production of alternative public sphere just a theoretical illusion? 

‘Democratia’ has etymological meaning of ‘voluntary rule’. From the democracy of ancient 

Athens to the liberal democracy, democracy within the limit of a nation-state in the modern society 

has established the order that free participation and intended concentration by all people in the 

social group is the core. However, there are other opinions that ideology of voluntary rule by 

participation was unrealistic, which was especially raised by the liberal market democrats. 

According to their opinions, the ideology for participatory democracy only gives up minimum 

democracy because political society is as complicate and discriminative as the capitalistic market is. 

61



On the other hand, if we pursue democratic development through the equality and expansion by 

participating for people instead of giving up the ideology of participatory democracy, we need 

rather positive counter-arguments from the capitalistic market democrats and self-reflection of 

politics. 

In consequence, this work aims to keep an eye on the deliberative democracy as a 

normative model in order to make a participatory democracy be real in this modern society, 

thereby I will try to review the communication theory of Habermas along with the intention to 

examine the democratic possibility of the Internet. 

Media and Democracy 

The media is regarded as a third factor in the public sphere in modern societies following speakers 

and the public (Peters, 1994). Considering a role of the media as a measure, the media should and 

further is willing to provide knowledge and information about the world in order to contribute to 

forming public opinions. Only the look onto that, in which kind and in which media what is 

reported, shows that such a neutral mean role does not exist. The media has already intervened in 

the process of forming opinions; in fact, the matters are to select specific events for reporting and to 

present those in a particular type method. Since a type of the presentation is related to the technical 

possibilities of the respective medium, those roles can’t be underestimated as a simple method. In 

particular, the ideal-typical separation of the communication research between speakers and 

audiences along with the definition of functions of input (compiling of topics and opinions), 

throughput (processing of the gathered one) and output (transmitting to the public) can not be 

maintained with such a sense that putative chroniclers always appear as annotating speakers, either 

(Neidhardt, 1994). 

The boundaries between speakers and audiences are to be regarded as liquid, so a clearly 

separated position is assigned to the public. A key point of the media criticism is that it becomes 

impossible for individuals to intervene in the process of forming opinions and to contradict those as 

well. Public opinion as the central argument is not a result of a real argument on social-relevant 

issues but the image care of ruling groups (Prokop, 1995). Criticism in such a way refers to an ideal 

picture of the public sphere, which is based on the idea that a rational discourse organizing itself on 

a basis of principles of a free market and gaining origin and social status except for attention. On 

the one hand, such a reference system is historically questionable, on the other hand the form 

62



elements of the public sphere let appear even the mentioned ideal picture doubtfully. Neither a 

domination-free speech nor a participation of all are possible, because public always exists only in 

the form of discontinuous, power-formed partial public sphere (Oy, 2002). 

Despite these aspects of the public sphere, the criticism of social movements emphatically 

referred to the ideal type of the communication of all; nevertheless, a general delimitation to the 

media propagated. Therefore, the attempt to construct fundamental contrasts between free people 

and the media preventing freedom can be pursued such as Charles Wright Mills (1962), Bertolt 

Brecht (1967), Hans Magnus Enzensberger (1970) and other ones. The assumption based on those 

contrasts alludes that he media would finally lead to a free communication among individuals; in 

fact, it in the first place stresses the power which the media performs for individuals. 

< Figure 1> The public sphere: inputs and outputs 

source: Habermas, 2006. 

The conception of the alternative public sphere arguing the power of the media in the way of the 

manipulation-thesis had been last developed by mentioned theoretical references: Mass media in 

63



the bourgeois society manipulated the true needs of the individuals through the kind and method 

how they select topics and present topics. The media prevents possible emancipation processes. 

On a basis of this thesis, numerous media projects of social movements which made themselves the 

task of supplying the ‘truer’ information has developed for the last years (Oy, 2001). 

This kinds of public sphere has to list an immense importance loss, already in the seventies 

Kurt Weichler(1987) settles the beginning of the crisis of the alternative public sphere. Because it 

obtains a very much simplified domination term, it is not possible to describe appropriately social 

domination mechanisms to the alternative public sphere. 

In the public sphere sociology and the communication research, the manipulation thesis 

particularly represented by Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge(1972), Horst Holzer(1969; 1971; 1973; 

1980), Dieter Prokop(1995; 2001) and other ones in the seventies were dissolved in more 

differentiated models for a long time. These arguments are based on two theoretical conceptions. 

One is the system-theory oriented mirror model of Niklas Luhmann and the other is the discoursetheoretical 

approach by Jürgen Habermas. In the mirror model, the public sphere is only the 

medium that social structures can be read off; in addition, it can not achieve any production of 

public opinion. What, on the other hand, the media can achieve is the institutionalization of the 

topics, which is understood under agenda-setting. Differently the normative discourse model of 

Habermas(1990): Under discussion pressure, it is possible for individual actors to have influence on 

the dominant opinion. According to Luhmann, while the media is being dispossessed of any power 

of the manipulation, the central reference to the ‘better’ communication is found in the concept of 

Habermas(1981a; 1981b) again. 

At current debates about critical conceptions of the public sphere basically happening in 

the context of questioning the use of the new Information and communication technologies, it can 

be observed that many theses concepts of the alternative public sphere again emerge in a new form 

(Welz, 2002). The basis-democracy ideas also develop an effect that exceeds in the legitimization of 

a new technology in the net debate. This becomes clear in the field of the international networking 

and articulation of NGOs which are based on the possibilities of new technologies in important 

measure. In the field of the computer mediated communication, it can be verified that former 

social fringe groups created the necessary cultural space for using the new technologies. However, 

is to be observed, that - such a further thesis - at the same time democracy-theoretical deficits are 

loaded with. These are particularly produced in a lacking reflection of the role of the public 

sphere as an institutional center of the civil society (Oy, 2001). 

64



< Figure 2> Exchanges between the political system and its social environments 


Emancipator potential of media 

In his book, ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Stukturwandel der 

Öffentlichkeit)’ Habermas describes the rise and implementation of the (by media produced) public 

sphere which was historically developed during the 18th and the early 19th century in England, 

France and Germany. This bourgeois public sphere sets itself up against the absolutist state and 

forms a counterpole. It becomes a ground for self-expression of the bourgeois class; specifically, it at 

the beginning began in art and literary criticism publications, then increasingly led to own media 

(Press). 

,,Die Französische Revolution wurde ... zum Auslöser eines Politisierungaschubes 

einer zunächst literarisch und kunstkrltisch geprägten Öffentlichkeit. Das gilt nicht 

65



nur für Frankteich, sondern auch für Deutschland. Eine ,Politisierung des 

gesellschaftlichen Lebens‘, der Aufstieg der Meinungspresse‘ der Kampf gegen 

Zensur und für Meinungsfreiheit kennzeichnen den Funktionswandel des 

expandierenden Netzes öffentlicher Kommunikation bis zur Mitte des 19. 

Jahrhundert. Die Zensurpolitik‘ mit der sich die Staaten des Deutschen Bundes 

gegen die bis 1848 veszögernde Institutionalisierung einer politischen 

Öffentlichkeit wehren, zieht Literatur und Kritik nur um so gewisser in den Strudel 

der Politisierung” (Habermas, 1990, 14). 

The realization of a public sphere, in which communications in life-world have network and it is 

provided by the in life-world anchored media, is complicated; however, in the measure in which on 

a basis of the private legal system the capitalistic mode of production achieves consistently (Holzer, 

1994). This development lets move also the individual interest of the bourgeois class in economic 

and political domination over the working class into the center and with that a serious 

contradiction that is produced with regard to the principle of the public sphere between the 

proclaimed ones and the actual interests of the bourgeois class. 

“Einerseits ist die Fiktion einer Herrschaft auflösenden diskursiyen Willensbildung 

zum ersten Mal im politischen System des bürgerlichen Rechtsstaates wirksam 

institutionalisiert worden; andererseits zeigt sich die Unvereinbarkeit der Imperative 

des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystems mit Forderungen eines demokratisierten 

Wlllensbildungsprozesses. Das Prinzip der Publizität, das auf der Grundlage eines 

Publikums gebildeter, räsonierender und kunstgenießender Privatleute und im 

Medium der bürgerlichen Presse zunächst in eindeutig kritischer Funktion gegen die 

Geheimpraxis des absolutistischen Staates durchgesetzt und in den 

Verfahrensweisen der rechtsstaatlichen Organe verankert worden war, wird zu 

demonstrativen manipulativen Zwecken umfunktioniert” (Habermas, 1971, 11). 

The development of capitalism paved the way for a new kind of public sphere with its changed 

institutional forms of political power. With the emergence of civil society and modern government, 

the privatized economic relations were brought under the area of public authority. The private 

realm comprised both the public economic relations and the private intimate relations and to 

66



negotiate between these two there emerged a new bourgeois public sphere. It comprised groups of 

individuals who would debate and discuss and regulate the civil society through constructive 

criticism. 

The emergence of bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported by the 18th century 

liberal democracy making resources available to this new political class to establish a network of 

institutions like publishing enterprises, newspapers and discussion forums, and the democratic 

press was a main tool to execute this. The key feature of this public sphere was its separation from 

the power of both the church and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both 

economic and social. 

As Habermas argues, this sphere of rational and universalistic politics, free from both the 

economy and the State, was destroyed by the same forces that initially established it. The growth of 

capitalistic economy led to an unfair distribution of wealth, thus widening the economic polarity. 

This resulted in limiting access to the public sphere and the political control of the public sphere 

was inevitable for the modern capitalistic forces to operate and thrive in the competitive economy 

(Holzer, 1994). 

Habermas sees just in the modern society - and indeed in unambiguous context with 

increasing capital expenditure and increasing complexity of the mass media - the authoritarian 

potential of the mass media particularly with regard to the net of the electronic media. 

,,heute technisch ein Potential der Befreiung..., so organisiert, daß es eher die 

Loyalität einer entpolitisierten Bevölkerung kontrolliert als daß es dazu diente, die 

staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Kontrollen Ihrerseits einer dezentralisierten, 

folgenreich kanalisierten und entschränkten 

unterwerfen” (Habermas, 1971, 12). 

diskursiven Willensbildung zu 

In his diagnosis of the pathology of the modern age, Habermas observes that the colonization of the 

(by media produced) public sphere is advanced by the subsystems of purpose-rational action. 

Nevertheless, he insists that the public sphere and its media are not subsumed to the imperatives of 

those subsystems under no circumstances chance-free. The reason for that is, which also deformed 

public sphere by mass media, remains momentum of the life-world and is bound onto the 

communicative rationality and its reason potential in spite of all economically and administratively 

67



motivated colonization attacks. Through this, the mass media are equipped with a characteristic 

ambivalence. 

,,(Massenmedien) hierarchisieren und entschränken den Horizont möglicher 

Kommunikation zugleich, der eine Aspekt läßt sich vom andern nicht trennen - und 

darin ist ihr ambivalentes Potential begründet. Die Massenmedien können, soweit sie 

Kommunikationseinflüsse in einem zentralisierten Netzwerk einseitig, von der Mitte zur 

Peripherie oder von oben nach unten kanalisieren, die Wirksamkeit sozialer Kontrollen 

erheblich verstärken. Die Ausschöpfung des autoritären Potentials bleibt aber stets 

prekär, weil in die Kommunikationsstrukturen selbst das Gegengewicht eines 

emanzipatorischen Potentials eingebaut ist. Die Massenmedien können Verständigungsprozesse 

gleichzeitig aufstufen, raffen und verdichten, aber die Interaktionen 

nur in erster Instanz von den Ja/Nein-Stellungnahmen zu kritisierbaren 

Geltungsansprüchen entlasten; auch die abstrahierten und gebündelten 

Kommunikationen können nicht zuverlässig gegen die Widerspruchsmöglichkeiten 

zurechnungsfähiger Aktoren abgeschirmt werden” (Habermas, 1981b, 573). 

Arenas of political communication 


68



In spite of the undeniable administrative and economic power of the media, 

public sphere, Habermas believes, is to be able to constitute a pluralistic mass 

public which ambivalence reflects in. This public can be moved indeed into the 

wake stirred up under the imperatives to economic and political-administrative 

purpose rationality in the public sphere. Nevertheless, the public remains ready 

for the protection. 

,,Soweit die Kommunikationsforschung nicht empirisch verkürzt wird und 

Dimensionen der Verdinglichung kommunikativer Alltagspraxis überhaupt 

berücksichtigt ..., bestätigt sie diese Ambivalenz. Wohl bieten vor allem 

Rezeptionsforschung und Programmanalyse immer wieder Beispiele für ... 

kulturkritische Thesen... Inzwischen sind aber ebenso energisch die 

Widersprüche herausgearbeitet worden, die daraus resultieren, - daß die 

Sendeanstalten konkurrierenden Interessen ausgesetzt sind und ökonomische, 

politisch-ideologische, professionelle und medienästhetische Gesichtspunkte 

keineswegs bruchlos integrieren können; - daß sich Massenmedien den 

Verpflichtungen, die ihnen aus ihrem journalistischen Auftrag erwachsen, 

normalerweise nicht konfliktfrei entziehen können; - daß die Sendungen 

keineswegs nur oder auch nur überwiegend den Standards der Massenkultur 

entsprechen, und selbst dann, wenn sie die trivialen Formen populärer 

Unterhaltung annehmen, sehr wohl kritische Botschaften enthalten können ...; - 

daß ideologische Botschaften ihren Adressaten verfehlen, weil die intendierte 

Bedeutung unter Rezeptionabedingungen eines bestininten subkulturellen 

Hintergrundes in ihr Gegenteil verkehrt werden, - daß sich der Eigensinn der 

kommunikativen Alltagspraxis gegen einen unvermittelten manipulativen 

Zugriff der Massenmedien zur Wehr setzt ...; - und daß die technische Entwicklung 

der elektronischen Medien nicht notwendig in Richtung einer 

Zentralisierung der Netzwerke verläuft, wenn auch ,video-pluralism‘ 

und ,television democracy‘ vorerst nicht viel mehr als anarchistische 

Visionen sind” (Habermas, 1981b, 573). 

69



Possibilities, to use the above quoted emancipator potential of the mass media, seem to be given 

then for Habermas, when communication centers against money and power are built in everyday 

life and life-world. Because such centers can establish - in particular if they are anchored to nongovernmental, 

non-economic initiatives, fora, associations and clubs - communication as productive 

force of life-world. That means: They can be connected with the abilities for the self-organization 

and self-articulation on the one hand, and on the other hand with the (in the communicative 

rationality placed) possibility to control conflict-pregnant social matters in the common interest of 

the subjects. Habermas sees chances for such a (money and power-free) democratic decisionmaking; 

particularly, if there are three conditions (Holzer, 1994): 

- if in the life-world a crisis consciousness that causes common initiatives of the life-world actors 

opposite economic and administrative colonizers and opens at least opportunity for the critical 

moments, is provoked by the perception of relevant social problem situations; 

- if the life-world actors - as far as they are employees and clients in the economically and/or 

administratively organized media system - bring those initiatives in their system-related activities ; 

- and if the life-world actors develop (mediated) procedures and/or cooperate with social 

movements, with which the subsystems economy and state/administration are able to be 

influenced direct. 

Even if, nevertheless, such chances are opened to the actors of civil society and they can 

unfold corresponding discourses, they still move in a most extremely weak network and in a 

correspondingly limited action space. 

,,Diskurse herrschen nicht. Sie erzeugen eine kommunikative Macht, die die 

administrative nicht ersetzen, sondern nur beeinflussen kann. Dieser Einfluß beschränkt 

sich auf die Beschaffung und den Entzug von Legitimation. Die 

kommunikative Macht kann den systematischen Eigensinn der öffentlicher 

Bürokratien, auf die sie ,im Modus der Belagerung‘ einwirkt, nicht ersetzen” 

(Habermas, 1990, 44). 

To Habermas, it is not a question of the sublation of functioning economic system in a capitalist 

way and the bureaucratically performing governing system that gags the in the life-world founded 

communication and public sphere. Only the question, how the colonizing infringements of the 

system imperatives onto life-world can be blocked out in democratic methods, interests him - in a 

70



method, that is realized as worth and norm formation process through (authentic) communication 

and discourse. 

Internet – New Hope for the Authentic Communication? 

In the discussion about the democratic potential of the Internet, the common characteristic of all 

concepts of electronic democracy consists in the hope for revitalization of public political 

communication. The conditions are the technical development as the digital revolution. Because of 

the interactive communication, the Internet is potentially able to support democratic processes. 

At the debate about possibilities and limits of the Internet, first of all, the positive valuation 

of the public sphere as a central institution of democratization processes is striking. The public 

sphere is regarded in accordance as an institution of the civil society with its normative 

characteristics. This perspective is formed by logic of the democratization within which 

communication is in turn a keyword (Oy, 2001). 

Indeed, there are numerous critics at the Cyberspace-euphoria, but the net appears as a 

possible world in which what is failed in the real-life democracy could be reconstructed: the earlier 

model of bourgeois democracy. In the net which offers all possibilities of the diverse, differentiated 

and comfortable expression a new at the same time, old form of the public sphere as arena is 

supposed to arise. 

The public sphere is no power-free space, but the social space is characterized by hierarchy 

and struggle. The emancipator potential of the public sphere is considerably smaller than also in the 

discussion around electronic democracy that it is accepted. In this sense, the public sphere is not the 

opposite, but firm component of power. 

Conclusion 

The struggle for the freedom and the democratization of the public communication by the rising 

bourgeoisie directed against the absolutism. The development of the modern media and the critical 

journalism goes along, however, with the refinement and differentiation of the communicative 

techniques. Johanna Dorer(1997) speaks of three historical stages in the twentieth century: the 

enforcement of the freedom of press to after the Second World War, a time of the relative freedom 

of media to in the fifties years and finally to a following stage within which the imperative for the 

71



permanent speech and counter-speech mutates to forced confession and communication. First of all, 

the institutions in state and economy, later the individual subjects devolve on a permanent 

obligation for the mediated self-representation. Foucault describes this process as a transformation 

of information and communication deployment (Oy, 2001). 

The information deployment associates with the ruling practice of the censorship. The 

media of the 19th century resisted governmental information politics, which restrained information 

on the one hand purposefully and developed on the other hand differentiated techniques of the 

control. By confession compulsion media perform power, when they contribute to the 

standardization of the reading, viewing and hearing and the discipline of individuals. This function 

of the discipline is on the way to convert itself into self-discipline. 

It is not generally the power of the media that has continuously increased since the 19th 

century. It is the technique of the power, which is transformed within this time continuously. In 

the current social stage of the postfordist restructuring processes debate with the role of 

communication is an element of the alternative concepts of media and public sphere. The 

communication deployment is expressed in the implementation of maximum possibilities of 

communicative participation within the existing traditional media as well as the Internet. 

References 

Brecht, Bertolt (1967). ‚,Radiotheorie“. Bertolt Brecht, Gesammelte Werke in acht Bänden, Band8(pp. 

117-134). Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. 

Dorer, Johanna (1997). Das Internet und die Genealogie des Kommunikationsdispositivs: Ein 

medientheoretischer Ansatz nach Foucault. In Andreas Hepp / Rainer Winter (Hrsg.), 

Kultur - Medien - Macht: Culrural Studies und Medienanalyse(pp. 247-258). Opladen: 

Westdt. Verlag. 

Enzensberger, Hans Magnus (1970). Baukasten zu einer Theorie der Medien. Kursbuch, 20, 159- 

186. 

Habermas, Jürgen (1971). Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 

Habermas, Jürgen (1981a). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 1. Frankfurt/M: 

Suhrkamp. 

Habermas, Jürgen (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Band 2. Frankfurt/M: 

Suhrkamp. 

72



Habermas, Jürgen (1985). Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 

Habermas, Jürgen (1990). Stukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der 

bürgerlichen Gesellschaft; Mit einen Vorwort zur Neuauflage 1990. Frankfurt/M: 

Suhrkamp. 

---------. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 

---------. (2006). Political communication in media society – Does democracy still enjoy an 

epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. A speech in 

Dresden to the International Communication Association (ICA). Available: 

http://www.habermasforum.dk/index.php?type=onlinetexts&text_id=342. 

Hölscher, Lucian (1978). Öffentlichkeit. In Brunner et al. (Hrsg.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Bd. 

4(pp. 413-467). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. 

Holzer, Horst (1969). Massenkommunikation und Demokratie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 

Opladen: Leske. 

---------. (1971). Gescheiterte Aufklärung? Politik, Ökonomie und Kommunikation in der 

Bundesrepublik Deutschland. München: Piper. 

---------. (1973). Kommunikationssoziologie. Reinbek: Rowohlt. 

---------. (1980). Medien in der BRD: Entwicklungen 1970-1980. Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein. 

---------. (1994). Medienkommunikation: Eine Einführung. Opladen: Westdt. Verlag. 

Mills, Charles Wright (1962). Die amenkanische Elite: Gesellschaft und Macht in den Vereinigten 

Staaten. Hamburg: Holsten Verlag. 

Negt, Oskar / Alexander Kluge (1972). Öffentlichkeit und Erfahrung: Zur Organisationsanalyse 

von bürgerlicher und proletarischer Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. 

Neidhardt, Friedhelm (1994). Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen. Friedhelm 

Neidhardt (Hrsg.), Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen(pp. 7- 

41).Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 

Oy, Gottfried (2001). Die Gemeinschaft der Lüge: Medien- und Öffentlicheitskritik sozialer 

Bewegungen in der Bundesrepublik. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. 

Peters, Bernhard (1994). Der Sinn von Öffentlichkeit. In Friedhelm Neidhardt (Hrsg.), 

Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung, Soziale Bewegungen(pp. 42-76). Opladen: 

Westdeutscher Verlag. 

Prokop, Dieter (1995). Medien-Macht und Massen-Wirkung: Ein geschichtlicher Überblick. Freiburg 

i.Br.: Rombach. 

73



---------. (2001). Der Kampf um die Medien: Das Geschichtsbuch der neuen kritischen 

Medienforschung. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag. 

Weichler, Kurt (1987). Die anderen Medien: Theorie und Praxis alternativer Kommunikation. 

Berlin: Vistas. 

Welz, Hans-Georg (2002). Politische Öffentlichkeit und Kommunikation im Internet. Aus Politik 

und Zeitgeschichte, B39-40, 3-11. 

74

Discussion Paper on ‘Internet, Public Sphere and Democracy’ 


Discussant: Prof. Cho, Maingki, Sogang University 

Good evening everyone. It is my pleasure to be here today. First, I would like to thank the staff 

of Korean UNESCO, who have invited me here to comment on the Young Tae Yoon paper. I 

learned a lot from this paper, which is titled, "Internet, Public Sphere and Democracy" and 

written in both English and German. 

Unfortunately I could not fully understand some parts of the paper, because its language is so 

dense, and because it is hard for me to grasp the meaning of some complex English or German 

vocabulary. 

Nevertheless, in my Ph. D. Program in sociology, we studied a little about the famous German 

philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas, whose philosophy is dealt with in the Young Tae 

Yoon paper. When I was a graduate student, we studied two of Habermas's works: The Theory 

of Communicative Action, Volumes I and II(Boston: Beacon Press, 1981, 1987), and Legitimation 

Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973). Those books were English translations. Sadly, my German 

skills are still not advanced enough to properly comprehend the original German versions. 

Because of my language shortcomings, my understanding of Habermas may be a 

superficial one. But this year Nanam Publishing House published a Korean version of 

Habermas's Theories des Kommunikativen Handelns. So I havebeen able to study and enjoy 

two volumes of Habermas's work recently translated into Korean. 

In Theories des Kommunikativen Handelns, Habermas introduced the concept of lifeworld 

(lebenswelt), which, as I understand it, came from Austrian-American philosopher and 

sociologist Alfred Schütz. Habermas usually used that concept for the emancipation of the 

public sphere. The modern welfare state produces the re-feudalization of the public sphere 

because of its strictly managed social systems, which are controlled by money and power. 

According to Habermas, there is no space for the communication action, which creates rational 

critical debate and the emancipation of the public sphere. 

Habermas historically traced the concept of rational critical debate to the 17th century 

English Coffee Houses. Theseplaces brought about a bourgeois revolution from the feudal 

society. These coffee houses--which were called Salons in France--were places of rational critical 

debate. They were places in which economic and political policy was proposed, analyzed, and 

criticized. The bourgeois classes participated freely and equally in these places of debate--where 

tolerance was the first rule. 

75


The bourgeois then left their coffee houses and salons, and shared their ideas with their 

extended family and friends by means both of letters and newsletters. Those media further 

extended the public space that had been created by the coffee houses. The bourgeois shared 

their lifeworld with the members of their social classes. Their key role in society was to bring 

about their emancipation from the overbearing power of their feudal states. 

Habermas described the history of the public sphere in his book, Structural Transformation 

of the Public Sphere (1962). He said the public sphere was a tool of emancipation from money 

and power. And he explained that the media created the tools of emancipation through the 

communication action. 

Referring to Habermas's concepts of lifeworld, public sphere, emancipation, and 

communication action, I will ask three questions to Dr. Yoon: 

1. How is the concept of lifeworld used in your paper? How do you define "lifeworld"? 

And why do you use it? I suspect Habermas's lifeworld concept will be an important concept to 

explain the emancipation of our modern, re-feudalized public sphere. 

2. I believe an "ideal type" of public sphere will be an important concept to explain the 

Internet. Can you explain your idea about the origin of the public sphere in the 17th 

century? Is the condition of the Coffee House different from our present-day Internet 

situation? Could the idea of the original public sphere help scholars today understand the 

Internet as an emancipation media? I am confused whether you are proposing that the Internet 

is an authentic communication or an emancipation media. 

3. Do you have an idea both of social action and of communication action in the 

emancipation situation? Could you clarify your understanding of communication action versus 

emancipation situation? 

Dr. Yoon, your good paper provided me an opportunity to review Habermas's 

philosophyonce again, especially his concept of public sphere. I would like to warmly thank 

you for your good paper. 

76

디지털 시대의 표현의 자유와 민주주의 

Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Age: 

Necessity to Revise International Law on Freedom of Expression 


Necessity to Revise International Law on Freedom of Expression* 

Prof. Guan Shijie 

Peking University, China 

Many thanks to the organizer of this conference for giving me an opportunity to share with 

you my thought on freedom of expression and democracy in the digital age. 

You may still remember the explosive reactions of the Muslim world to the cartoons 

published by a Danish daily newspaper that portrayed Muhammad variously as a kindly old 

man and as a villain with a bomb in his turban. While the Muslims felt being offended and 

prejudiced against, the paper was seen by some as a trailblazer in the fight for freedom of 

opinion. Could this controversy be possible if not for this digital age we are living in? 

Most people would agree that we are now living in what Macluhan termed a “global village”, 

where we increasingly interact with people from different cultures, thanks to the fast 

development of traffic and communication technology. Like it or not, those interactions will 

continue to grow in both frequency and intensity. 

The Internet especially opens up a new 

space for freedom of expression by giving people a better channel to express their opinions 

more freely, particularly for the young people, as most of the traditional restraints on 

freedom of expression lost their hold. Ever since the Chinese mainland was first connected 

with the global Internet in April 1994, the net industry has been developing with a rapid pace. 

According to China Internet Network Information Center, until June 30, 2006, there are 123 

million net users in the Chinese mainland. International data bandwidth and computers 

connected with the Internet are also growing dramatically (see table 1, 2 and 3). July 2006 

statistics show that most Chinese net surfers are young, 82.3% of the net–using population is 

77




under 35 years old (see table 4). 43.2% of people surveyed choose joining BBS、discussion 

groups and various kinds of forums as their primary goal for accessing the internet, 23.7% of 

which write or view blogs.1 The Internet users have powerful medium to express their 

opinions. Harold Adams Innis, a famous communication scholar, said something to the effect 

that the advantages of a new medium will lead to the emergence of a new civilization. If we 

acknowledge the advantages of the Internet over traditional mass media, we may well say 

that the new medium will incur the birth of a new civilization. As freedom of expression and 

democracy are considered an important part of a civilization. is there any new dimension to 

them in this digital age? What should the UNESCO do to meet the challenges and 

opportunities of the digital age? I would like to express my opinion about it. 

I. Freedom of Expression as a Balance between Rights and Duties 

What exactly does the term “freedom of expression” mean? Does it mean that I could say 

anything anywhere at any time? Could I just shout, “There is a time bomb in the plane?” 

while I was flying from Beijing to Soul? I believe most of you would say “no”. 

Legal scholars say that the freedom of expression is nothing absolute. One’s right to the 

freedom of expression should go parallel with his/her duties as well. There is still a long way 

to go before people all over the world could truly enjoy their right to freedom of expression; 

in my speech today, however, I’d rather talk about one’s duties to the freedom of expression. 

I believe one’s sense of “duties” is as equally important as one’s awareness of “right” while 

exercising freedom of expression. I’d like to cite evidences to support my argument. 

1. The issue of rights and duties to freedom of expression as raised in UN documents 

(1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about the right to freedom of 

expression. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression:this right 

*Thank to Doctor Mingzhi He, Doctor Kaihe Chen, Ms. Jun Ma and Ms. Yingxue Li for their commonents on various drafts. 

1 http:// www.cnnic.org.cn 

78




includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart 

information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

Article 29 deals with the duties of a human being when he has the right to freedom of 

expression: 

(a) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development 

of his personality is possible. 

(b) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such 

limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due 

recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just 

requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic 

society. 

(c) These rights and freedom may in no case be excised contrary to the purposes and 

principle of the United Nations 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an official declaration passed by UN General 

Assembly in 1948. It is very influential across the world but doesn’t have any legal bound to 

any State. But, according to the International Treaty Law, the two conventions (International 

Convention on Civil and Political Rights and International Convention on Economic, Social and 

Cultural Rights) based on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do have legal bounds to each 

signatory state to the conventions. Once a state signed the treaty, it ought to abide by the 

convention, fulfilling its obligations and responsible for any consequences for violating the 

convention. 

(2) The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights 

Article 19 deals with both the rights and duties to the freedom of expression: 

“1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include 

freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of 

79




frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other 

media of his choice. 

3. The exercise of the rights provided in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special 

duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but 

these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: 

(1) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 

(2) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.” 

From above-mentioned two documents we may arrive at the conclusion that freedom of 

expression is two faceted,involving both “rights” and “duties”. 

In comparison,the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights is much more 

elaborate in demonstrating the two-facetedness of the freedom of expression than the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Juxtaposing the two aspects of freedom of expression, 

by combining the separate articles (Article 19 and Article 29) in Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights into one article (Article 19) in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 

the latter puts more emphasis on the balance between rights and duties. 

In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights only describes the principle of duties, 

while the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights not only describes the principle 

of duties, but also the concrete content of the duties by prohibiting propaganda for war and 

advocacy of hatred among nations in Article 20: 

“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to 

discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” 

2. Forbiddance of the expression of anti-human rights in other UN and UNESCO documents 

After Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and 

Political Right, documents concerning human rights were passed in UN and UNECO 

conferences; these include Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 

Genocide(1948), The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 

80




Discrimination(1969), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against 

Women(1979), Convention on Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment(1984) and, Convention on the Right of the Child(1989). These and other 

documents all forbid the expression of anti-human rights. The expression of racial 

discrimination, for instance, is forbidden in the International Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 4 stipulates, “States Parties condemn all 

propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one 

race or group of persons of one color or ethic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote 

racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive 

measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and to this 

end. With due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: ….. (b) Shall 

declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda 

activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in 

such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law” . 

In his reports on Civil and Political Rights, Including the Question of Freedom of 

Expression on 17 December 2004 and 30 December 2005, Ambeyi Ligabo (Reporter of the 

Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to the Freedom of Opinion 

and Expression to Commission on Human Rights, UN) argued for legal restrictions on the 

right to freedom of expression. “Restrictions should be provided by law and concern issues 

such as the protection of the rights of others, national security, and the prevention of 

advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred or any form of discrimination.”2 

3. Rights and duties to the freedom of expression in regional human rights conventions and most 

national constitutions 

Regional conventions or declarations on human rights (European Convention on Human 

Rights (1950), American Convention on Human Rights (1969), African Charter on Human 

2 

UN document, E/CN.4/2005/64, E/CN.4/2006/55. 

81




and People’s Rights (1981), The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990))) 

prescribe that the two-facetedness of freedom of expression involve both rights and duties. 

Article 13 of American Convention on Human Rights, for instance, not only specifies the 

duties of freedom of expression, but also prescribes that if someone offends these duties 

he/she will be punished by law. Article 13 of American Convention on Human Rights is as 

follows: 

Article 13: Freedom of Thought and Expression 

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes 

freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, 

either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or throgh any other medium of one’s 

choice. 

2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be 

subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which 

shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights 

or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health 

or morals. 

3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such 

as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting 

frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means 

tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainment may 

be subject by law or prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the 

moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 

5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred 

that constitute incitements to lawless group of persons on any groups including those of race, 

color religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law. 

82




More than 90% of the world’s national constitutions hold that freedom of expression involves 

both rights and duties. 

The constitution of USA is one of the few constitutions that stressed the right to freedom of 

expression without any mention of the duties involved. The first article of Amendments to 

the Constitution of the United States passed in 1891 stated, “Congress shall make no law 

respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 

petition the Government for a redress of grievance”. With the passage of time, however, the 

importance of social responsibility was recognized and then developed into a theory in the 

US in 20th century. It’s believed that “Freedom of expression under the social responsibility 

theory is not an absolute right, as under pure libertarian theory.” “‘In the context of an 

achieved political freedom the need of limitation becomes evident’. One’s right to free 

expression must be balanced against the private rights of others and against vital social 

interests.” 3 One American scholar said, “Even under the First amendment, in the United 

States a battery of laws restricts the circulation of certain kinds of content in the interests of 

national security, foreign policy, border control, trade protectionism, or other concerns. Here 

are some of the kinds of communication content controlled or forbidden in the United States: 

defamation, privacy, obscenity, national security and state secrets, deceptive advertising, 

world communism, political propaganda.”4 

3 Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm, Four Theories of the Press, Ayer 

Company Publishers Inc., 1956, p.7, p.97. 

4 Howard H. Frederick, Global Communication and International Relations, Wadsworth 

Publishing Company, 1993, p.54; See also Stephen R. Barnett, “ United States Regulation of 

Transborder Speech”, Comm/Ent Law Journal 9 (1987): 635-745; Morton Halperin in Susan 

Blank, “ Opening America’s Borders to a Free Flow of Information,” Civil Liberties, Spring 

(1986):1; David H. Weaver, Judith M. Buddenbaum, and Jo Ellen Fair, “Press, Freedom, 

Media, and Development, 1950-1979: A study of 134 Nations”, Journal of Communication 35 

(2, 1985): 104-117; Achal Mehra, “ Freedom Champions as Freedom Muzzlers: U.S. 

Violations of Free Flow of Information,” Gazette 36 (1985):3-20; and “Human Rights in the 

United States”, special issue of International Review of Contemporary Law (1,1990). 

83




4. Limitations to the freedom of expression as advocated from early stage to present 

The idea of freedom of expression was first raised in John Milton’s well-known 

A speech for 

the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing published in 1644; he was thus recognized as the founding 

father. In defiance of a government order requiring the licensing and censorship of books, 

Milton pleaded for a free press in order to let the love of God and the ‘free and knowing 

spirit’ flourish. Milton was not in favor of absolute freedom of the press that excludes state 

regulation. He insisted that the books of popish bigots should be expurgated, and that in the 

fight for virtue, toleration of the intolerant would be self-defeating. Milton reserved the law of 

subsequent punishment for any abuse or licentiousness of the press. Yet he had no doubt that 

the general suppression of published opinions is evil.5 

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen passed during the French Revolution in 

1789 was the world’s first constitution. Its 11th article said, “Free communication of ideas and 

opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Consequently, every citizen may 

speak, write, and print freely, subject to responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the 

cases determined by law.” 

In The media and Democracy published in 1991, well-known British Scholar John Keane 

argued “... freedom of communication can be used to destroy freedom of communication: 

‘liberty of the press gives freedom to despots and libertarians alike. The sound and fury over 

Islamic blasphemy and apostasy generated by Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses reminds us, if 

the point needed accentuate into a battlefield, in which, thanks to the existence of certain civil 

liberties such as ‘liberty of the press’, lions can roar and foxes can come to enjoy the freedom 

to hunt down chickens. Under extreme conditions, a quarrelling civil society can even 

bludgeon itself to death.”6 

5 John Milton, Areopagitica, A speech for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, E. H. Visiak ed., 

Mitlon, Complete Poetry and Selected Prose, Glasgow, 1925, p.687, quote from John Keane, 

The Media and Democracy, Polity Press,1991, pp.12-13. 

6 John Keane, The Media and Democracy, Polity Press,1991, p.149. 

84




II. Too Much Right Stressed and Duties Neglected in Today’s Mass Media 

Why should I make such an effort to prove the idea that the freedom of expression involves 

both rights and duties? Because today when people talk about the freedom of expression, 

most of them just only mention article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fail 

to notice article 29 in the same declaration; they don’t seem to be interested in article 19 of 

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights at all. In other words, they are 

interested in the rights to Freedom of expression and ignore the duties of freedom of 

expression. For instance, during the conflict of Denmark Cartoons, the Cartoons were 

reprinted by many newspapers in Western Europe. In Communication between Cultures, a 

very popular textbook on intercultural communication, the author argues, “On a more 

universal scale we can turn to the United Nations Universal declaration of Human Rights. 

While there are a total of thirty articles, three of them directly related to intercultural 

communication. 

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right. They are 

endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of 

brotherhood. 

Article 18. Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”7 The authors of 

the textbook do not mention Article 29 of Universal declaration of Human Rights at all. 

I would like to give another example. On the home page of UNESCO on the promotion of 

freedom of Expression there writes: “Thus at the core of the debate is between the principle of 

free access to and free flow of information on the one hand, and those of the development 

and protection of cultures, languages, and personal privacy on the other, how will the 

7 Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter ed., Communication Between Cultures, fifth 

edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2004, p.331; sixth edition, 2007, p.358. 

85




principle of freedom of expression, as defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration be 

reinforced or protected?”8 

I believe that tendency of stressing the right while ignoring the duties of freedom of 

expression is no good for maintaining world peace in the global village, as the freedom of 

expression is limited by law. 

III. Different Restrictions on the Freedom of Expression 

in Different Nations and Regions 

The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights was signed by 162 States and 

ratified by 156 States till May 8, 2006. Each nation has different understandings about the 

rights and duties to freedom of expression, particularly on the duties or restrictions provided 

by law, as culture, history, religion and national constitution vary from nation to nation. 

1. Restrictions on the freedom of expression as stated in national constitutions 

National constitutions do share common grounds on freedom of expression, but there are 

differences regarding restrictions on duties to freedom of expression. 

Section 77 in the Constitution of Denmark (1953) narrates the freedom of expression as 

follows: “Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in 

speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other 

preventive measures shall never again be introduced.” 

The Constitution of Iran (1979) narrates the freedom of expression in Article 24 as follows: 

“Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the 

fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will 

be specified by law.” Article 175 said, “The freedom of expression and dissemination of 

8 http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php_URL_ID=4466&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT 

ION=201.htm/. 

86




thoughts in the Radio and Television of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be guaranteed in 

keeping with the Islamic criteria and the best interests of the country.” 

Comparing the provisions in the articles of two national constitutions, we could see there are 

obvious differences between the restrictions on freedom of expression in the two countries. In 

the Iranian Constitution, special regulations are made regarding the violation of religious 

doctrines and principles while there are no such restrictions in Danish Constitution. 

According to the Iranian Constitution, the Islamic republic is a system based on the belief in 

the One god (as stated in the phrase “there is no god except Allah”), his exclusive sovereignty 

and the right to legislator, and the necessity of Submission to His commands; Divine 

revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; the exalted dignity and value of 

man, and his freedom couple with responsibility before God. 

Islam forbids portrayal of the 

Prophet Mohammed and the Allah and therefore a violent outrage at the recent caricatures of 

Mohammed is justified. There are about 1.2 billion believers of Islam. The state religion of 30 

countries is Islam in the world and Iran is just one of them. 

2. Restrictions on freedom of expression as expressed in regional documents on human rights 

Article 22 of The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) said, 

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would 

not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. 

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, 

and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. 

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such 

a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical 

values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. 

(d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that 

may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination. 

Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights (1950) states, 

87




(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold 

opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public 

authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the 

licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and duties, may be subject to 

such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are 

necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or 

public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, 

for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of 

information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the 

judiciary. 

It is obvious that restrictions on freedom of expression in European countries are much 

different from those in Islamic states. In Islamic countries, it is clearly stated that violation of 

the sanctity and dignity of the Prophets could by no means be tolerated, while there are no 

such restrictions in European Convention. 

Why should the conflict over the Danish Cartoons break out between Europe and Islam 

world? I believe one of reasons is that European people hold different opinions on freedom of 

expression as compared with the Islamic people, particularly on the duties or on the special 

restrictions on freedom of expression. 

IV. Deficiency in Today’s International Laws on Freedom of Expression 

The Internet is a new technology which links the world by breaking traditional national 

boundaries. The earth is shrunk into a “village” indeed in which the information can be easily 

communicated in the digital age. Just as Süddeusche Zeitung a German newspaper said, the 

conflict of Denmark Cartoons is a kind of family fight which has spilled out into global streets. 

During the conflict, Saudi Arabia temporarily recalled its ambassador, Syria removed its top 

diplomat and Libya closed its embassy. In Arab countries, Danish products were boycotted 

88




and its trademark red and white flag burned in public demonstrations of outrage. The issue 

of the Cartoons has been transformed into a conflict of civilizations. 

In the case of Denmark Cartoons, both sides’ actions are legal according to each regional 

human rights document, the European Convention on Human Rights and The Cairo 

Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. The conflict took place in the International 

community indeed, which side’s action is illegal or immoral according to the international 

laws on freedom of expression? In other words, which side’s action violates the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights? 

1. Which side is Illegal? 

According to Article 29 of Universal Declaration of Human Right, “In the exercise of his 

rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by 

law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and 

freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the 

general welfare in a democratic society” 

Is this “law” referring to domestic law, regional law, international law, some of them or all of 

them? It is not clear. 

According to Article 19 of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, “The 

exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties 

and duties. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as 

are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.” 

Nothing is specified about what actually this “law” means here. 

2. Which side is Immoral? 

What is the standard for “morals” or “morality”? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights do not give us a clear definition. 

Different cultures and states do share certain moral standards; there are contrasting 

89




differences as well. In Denmark, blasphemy against gods is not immoral, while it is strictly 

forbidden in Iran. Conflicts arising from cultural differences are very common indeed. The 

Korean people, for example, like to eat dog meat; it doesn’t involve anything regarding 

morality. Most Americans, on the other hand, believe dog is the best friend of man and it’s 

unimaginable to eat the meat of a friend and it’s definitely immoral to do so. The world is 

characterized by diverse cultures. 

Morality is part of a culture and the standards of which 

are as diverse as the world is. Cultural diversity should be protected and promoted as is 

advocated in the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural 

Expression (2005). Two of the principles are as following: “to promote respect for the 

diversity of cultural expression and raise awareness of its value at the local, national and 

international levels” and “to reaffirm the sovereign rights of States to maintain, adopt and 

implement policies and measures that they deem appropriate for the protection and 

promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory.” 

Nothing says of the deficiency in current International Laws on freedom of expression more 

than the cartoon controversy. 

The key point here is that terms regarding the duties or 

restrictions are not clearly defined in the international laws. They can be interpreted 

differently in different cultures and states. Therefore the function of duties or restrictions of 

international laws on freedom of expression is weak in international community. 

International laws could not play their due role in today’s international communication. 

As we are now living in a digital age, a domestic affair may acquire global significance. And 

as communication is closely related to cultures, it is much easier to incur intercultural 

conflicts today than it was 10 years ago. 

The freedom of expression involves both rights and duties. In order to avoid intercultural 

conflicts and maintain peace in this globe we are living in, the international community needs 

certain clear restrictions to the freedom of expression; and these restrictions shall only be 

provided by international law. 

90




One of the characteristics of a democratic society is its sound legal system. A democratic 

international community needs a sound international legal system. The freedom of 

expression in this global village needs a sound international law. 

Therefore I would like to suggest that UNESCO make greater efforts to revise the 

international law with regard to freedom of expression in this digital age. 

Table 1: Internet users in China (thousands) 

Date 97/10 98/07 99/07 00/07 01/07 02/07 03/07 04/07 05/07 06/07 

Number 620 1,175 4,000 16,900 26,500 45,800 68,000 87,000 103,000 123,000 

Source: http://www.cnnic.org.cn 

Table 2: Computers connected to the Internet (thousands) 

Date 97/10 98/07 99/07 00/07 01/07 02/07 03/07 04/07 05/07 06/07 

Number 299 542 1,460 6,590 10,020 16,130 25,720 36,030 45,600 54,500 


Table 3: China’s total international bandwidth 

Date 97/10 98/07 99/07 00/07 01/07 02/07 03/07 04/07 05/07 06/07 

Megabits/ 

second 

25 85 241 1,234 3,275 19,576 18,599 53,941 82,617 214,175 


Table 4: internet users by age 

Under 18 18-24 25-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60 

14.9% 38.9% 18.4% 10.1% 7.5% 7.0% 2.4% 0.8.9% 


91

[ 국문요약문] 


[ ] 


- - 

( 關世杰 , ) 

. 

, . 

? 

(Marshall Macluhan) ‘ ’ 

. 

. 

, 

. 1994 4 2006 6 30 1 2 

3 , 82.3% 35 . 

(Harold Innis) 

. . 

? 

? 

Ⅰ. : 

‘ ’ ? ? 

. 

. 

. . 

. 

1. UN 

(1) 「」(Universal Declaration of Human Rights) 

「」 

19 “ . 

…….” . 29 

. 

1. 

. 

92



2. …… , , 

3. . 

. 

「」 

1948 , 

. 「 

」「 , , 

」 

, . 

(2) 「」( 「」) 

「」 

19 . 

1. . 

2. . ……. 

3. 2 . 

1 

2 

. , 

. 

(two-faceted) 

. 「」 

. 「」 

, 「」 

. 「」 

「」 

, 

.(20 ) 

2. 

」(1948), 「」(1969), 

「 

「 

」(1979), 「 

, 

, . 

」(1984), 「」(1989) 

3. 

「」(1950), 「」(1969), 

「」 

(1981), 「」(1990) (regional) 

. 「」 13 

. 

93



. 

90% 

, 1 “ 

”. 

” 

. (Howard Frederik) “ , , 

, .” . 

4. 

(John Milton) , 

. 

, . 

. 「 

」 

, 11 “ 

( ) . …… 

.” . 1991 

『』(Media and Democracy) 

(John Keane) " 

.” . “ 

.” 

Ⅱ. , 

「」 

29 . 19 . 

19 

. 『』(Communication between Cultures) “ 

(1 , 18 , 19 ) .” . 

. 30 3 

. “ 

, , , 

. 

?” . 

. 

Ⅲ. 

1. 

94



. 77 “ 

, , . 

.” 24 . “ 

.” 175 “ 

…… 

.” 

. 

. 

, 

. , 

. 

. 

2. 

「」(1990) 22 「」 10 

. 

, 

. 

. 「」 

. 

? 

Ⅳ. 

, 

? 「」「」 

? 

. 

1. ? 

「」 

, 

29 “ , 

, , 

.” . , , 

. 

. 「」 19 

2. ? 

? 「」「」 

. , 

. 

. , 

95



. 

. 

. 「 

」 

“ , , 

, . “ 

” . 

. 

. , 

. 

. 

, 

. 

. 

. . 

, 

. . 

. 

96

Discussion Paper on ‘Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Age’ 


Discussant: Prof. KIM Seo-joong 

SungKongHoe University 

I agree with most of the propositions suggested here. For example, 

-‘One’s right to the freedom of expression should go parallel with his/her duties as well.’ 

- Various conventions, worldwide or local, already express the balance between the rights and 

duties of the freedom of expression. 

- ‘Too much right stressed and duties neglected in today’s mass media’ or ‘tendency of stressing 

the right while ignoring the duties of freedom of expression is no good for maintaining world 

peace in the global village’ 

- ‘terms regarding the duties or restrictions are not clearly defined in the international laws’ 

Those are very important points in discussing the freedom of expression. However, in some 

aspects I’d like to say more about this paper. Firstly, even though this paper stresses the duties 

of the freedom of expression, it may seem based upon the thesis that the freedom is individual 

right. That is, the struggle between individual right and duty. In a sense it seems reasonable. 

But in my opinion the freedom of expression is more public rather than individual. The reason 

why the freedom must be given and the duties are also important is that the freedom of 

expression is for the supporting of the democratic system not for individual desire to 

communicate. So the expressions against the democratic system must be banned. I think that 

this aspect of the freedom should have been stressed. Of course, I know that the term of 

‘democratic’ has diverse meanings. And the clearing up of this term would be our continuous 

task as a social scientist. 

Secondly, you had better present your concrete suggestions about the revising the international 

laws especially stressing the duties of the freedom of expression. Which terminology must be 

used, In which format the law may be made. Between whom. In a word, you had better show 

the sample of the international law as a proposal even if it was a draft. 

Thirdly, you had better describe the pattern or the cases of the abuse of the freedom of 

expression in digital field more. The digital technology makes us to discuss more, that is, makes 

97


us participant. It is very important factor in participatory democracy. However the culture of 

reply system in the internet now has been devastated full of the curses, false statements, 

statements of the racist etc. So these situations discourage the actively participant netizen, 

Sooner oro these situations discouraged the participant netizen.ussively and later it will be 

dangerous to the democracy. It may already be occurred in Korea in my opinion. The situations 

of other countries using the internet do not seem different much. So stressing this aspect, you 

could have argued yourself more persuasively in that the (international) law must be made to 

regulate the abuse of the freedom of expression. 

Lastly, I want to tell about the nations or blocks who refuse to accept the differences between 

nations, cultures or religions. They avoid the discussion on the cultural diversity that would be 

the barrier to the penetration in the economic field. And in my opinion they would be against 

the making the law of concretizing the duty of the expression in the international fields as was 

the case of the struggle between the U.S.A and the third world in the order of the informational 

flow. It will be also key point how we could break through the barrier of the economic or 

religious great power(or power blocks). 

Thank you. 

98

커뮤니케이션과 민주주의는 동전의 양면 

Communication and Democracy Are Two Sides of the Same Coin 


Zahid Hussein 

President, Sustainable Resource Foundation (SuRF) 

Islamabad, Pakistan 

I have a very firm belief: Communication and democracy are two sides of the same coin! Without 

communication, there is no democracy and without diversity, democracy is a farce. Although 

head and tail of a coin are different from each other, different-ness of each face reinforces the 

force and presence of each binding them inseparably and integrally together into a wholesome 

whole. 

Recent developments in the IT industry, either in popular usage of the internet, or the 

massively allowed and often encouraged conspiracy of computer software or the digital 

sweatshops that exist in Karachi, Lahore, Bangalore or Chennai in the form of call centres…..are 

infrastructural edifices the acquisition of which is important but not the only inalienable reality 

for assuring a democratic dispensation. Sporadic growth of call centres, establishment of internet 

sites and huge donations of computer hard and software are important. However, more 

important is the unhampered access to information without any fear or favour. 

The past couple of decades have witnessed a variety of fancy development scenarios. I’d like 

to mention quite a few; the first one was a so-called “developed Iran” under the Shah of Iran. The 

Shah laid down a great infrastructure of roads and other physical plethora necessary for 

“development” as it was then defined by the 4stern development set. However, Shah’s Savak and 

his ban on political dissent, political diversity or say communication made the whole 

development a big joke. Since communication was missing, participatory democracy was absent; 

the entire development edifice built by Shah couldn’t bear the brunt of a popular onslaught by 

Khomeini, an onslaught which was nurtured by encouragement of communication, participation 

and collaboration. 

In South Korea, sustainability in democracy occurred only after dictatorship was sent 

packing home by popular movements. In Pakistan, at this point in time, no amount of 

infrastructural deregulation, acquisition of software or F-16 jetfighters can sustain the democracy 

as long as a military government remains in power. 

99



At this point in time, Pakistan boasts a huge revolution in telecommunications and ICT. 

There is twice the number of mobile telephone connections than the fixed lines; mobile service 

and equipment are certainly cheapest in the world! The huge state telecom company has been 

sold out to the private sector and availability of CDMA, AMPS and GSM technology apparently 

tote the country as a paradise and a safe haven for investment. But will this all lead to a 

sustainable democracy where communication and democracy exist side by side? The answer is a 

big No! 

Although it’s quite common with some left-leaning intellectuals to equate democracy with 

capitalism, they seem to forget that capitalism also brings diversity, greater choice and certainly 

needs a democratic atmosphere to thrive so that its benefits reach the grassroots levels. I’d like to 

draw your attention to Pakistan once again. Big IT infrastructure may be called development but 

not democratic development. The military still rules the roost, antiquated anti-women and antiminority 

are still prevalent and religion is still the part of the constitution! Access to information, 

despite passing freedom to information act, is still very academic. Would the physical 

infrastructure be ale to nurture and shine our coin that we are talking about? Certainly not. The 

world has seen Shahs of Iran crumbling; the societies have seen the caste system being jettisoned 

out. I’m sure a mix of communication and democracy will certainly get rid of the barriers on 

communication and usher my country into a state where communication and democracy 

complement/compliment each other. 

Communication exists in many forms, shades, hues and colours. It exists in participation at 

the planning stages; it manifests itself in the form of participatory research that goes on before we 

design a message and it also shows its face in the form of participatory valuation when impact is 

being measured. 

Another very important part of communication reveals itself in the form of are diversity; 

diversity in the community of nations, diversity in religious freedom, diversity in ethnic, cultural 

and linguistic differences, diversity of gender and diversity of opinions. The talk about clash of 

civilizations is anti-democratic, non-communicative and borders on fascism of a kind. The 

dialogue among civilization, on the other hand, is a salute to democracy reinforces diversity and 

encourages dialogue that we humans have learnt to indulge in after millions of years of evolution. 

Shall we divest ourselves of the dialogue, the communication, and act anti-democratic by 

threatening a weaker nation by saying…..we will bomb you into Stone Age! 

Democracy is neither an exclusive preserve of the west no is it the sole legacy of the East. It’s 

our common heritage! Democracy ensures communication and the inalienable and integral 

relationship of both increases our love for convergence rather than conversion. Convergence, 

100



propounded in the last century by Pitrim Sorokin, is a legacy of a Russian émigré like the 

Sikorsky helicopter. It works! 

If we treat communication and democracy as the two faces of the same coin, we would be 

prone to talk more often despite the differences. We would have more Clintons and Gates’ than 

Richard Armitages or Bushes! 

If communication and democracy are allowed to nurture each other, our governments would 

spend more money on health, improved governance patterns, equity in health and social justice 

and less on acquiring military nuclear technology and other military hardware that we buy to kill 

each other to put an end to a dialogue! 

Before I conclude, I’d love to share with you a poem by Ibn Arabi, Spanish mystic and 

philosopher. 

“My heart is open to all winds: 

It is a pasture for gazelles 

and a home for Christian monks, 

a temple for idols 

The Black Stone of the Mecca pilgrim, 

the table of the Torah 

and the book of the Koran. 

Wherever God's caravans turn, 

the religion of love shall be my religion 

and my faith. 

(Muhammad Ibn 'Arabi, Mystic, philosopher, poet, sage, Spain, 1165-1240) 

101

Discussion Paper on ‘Democracy and Communication Are Two Sides of the Sam Coin’ 

Discussion Paper on ‘Democracy and Communication Are Two Sides of the Sam Coin’ 

Discussant: Prof. LEE Min-Kyu, Chung-Ang University 

First of all, it's great honor and pleasure to meet Mr. Hussein. Without this conference I can't 

not encounter him. I read his article and talk about personally how to improve communication 

each other before we start session. He is pointed that communication and democracy are two 

sides of the same coin. Also, he really focus on respectability and diversity each other. I'm 

totally agree his point of view. 

Frankly speaking, I don't know about Pakistan situation. However, like South Korea, I guess 

their information technology growing rapidly. For example, he said there is twice the number 

of cell phone than regular phone. And he said mobile service and machine are the cheapest in 

the world. 

Moreover, I think we share more our experiences thru effective communication 

methods. There is two sides of the same coin communication and democracy. But let me add 

two more factors. That is economic and technology factors. I really want to emphasize these 

elements. Also cultural factor facilitate our communication environment. 

Economic development and technology influences improving communication 

infrastructure. At the same time, more communication each other help improve 

democracy. Mr. Hussein tell us some useful examples. Especially, out country has rare 

communication with Islam World. We need more communication with the Islamic World. 

From now on, we have to be more communicate with other nations especially non-Western 

countries like Pakistan, India. It's really correlate with communication and improve world 

democracy. I think economic and technological cooperation is becoming important factor to 

improve democracy. 

The whole process is like a matrix. With this international conference, we have to exchange 

our ideas frequently. I want really emphasis on our open-minded approach to promote 

communication and democracy. Again, communication and democracy is two side of coins. 

Also, I want to emphasize economic development and information technology 

development. With this development, cultural hostile will be break down. Lastly, I'm really 

agree with his point of view that is "open-minded each other." 

Thank you. 

102

민주주의와 시민 윤리의식 

Media Ethics in the Immature Democracies 


Prof. SON Bong-ho 

Dongduk Women’s University, ROK 

1. Freedom and Equality 

A government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is the hallmark of democracy. 

It assumes that the people are in general reasonable, responsible and fair. But democratic 

experiments so far have proved the assumption not necessarily and always true. No governance, 

whether democratic or dictatorial, may ignore the plain fact of what Max Weber called “average 

of deficiency” of the people. However, most of us, while idealizing the autonomy of the people, 

are often reluctant to recognize it. Yet the fact still remains that autonomy is not without some 

control of freedom or a certain measure of heteronomy on the part of concrete individual 

citizens of the state. Otherwise, the authentic freedom of the majority would be endangered. It 

is an unfortunate contradiction to suffer some curtailment of freedom in the name of 

maximizing freedom of the majority. 

The reasonable goal of democracy is not, therefore, an unlimited allowance of 

individual freedom but maximum of freedom under certain conditions that can be agreed upon 

by the reasonable segment of the society. To arrange and perform the procedure for such 

agreement and to enforce them to concrete situations is one of the main tasks of a democratic 

government. Inevitably, therefore, many people in democratic states feel that some laws and 

regulations are oppressive to their freedom. 

The main cause of the paradox is that beside freedom, equality and right to pursue 

one’s happiness are also important ideals of democracy. Democratic parts of the world seem to 

agree with the formulation of the ideals of democracy in the American Constitution: freedom, 

equality of all individuals and right to pursue one’s happiness. Unfortunately, however, 

achieving all of them together is not always easy or even possible. Freedom and equality are 

very often mutually exclusive in many concrete occasions. We have to admit that most people 

are self-seeking and that the ability and opportunity to enjoy freedom and to pursue happiness 

are unequally endowed by the nature or unevenly distributed in the society. Some are more 

privileged and strong while others, less privileged and relatively weak. The weak are easily 

exploited by the strong. There must be, therefore, some kind of external coercion to curb the 

excess of the strong in order to supplement the shortage of the weak. Equality of all individuals 

and rights to pursue one’s happiness often serve to justify curtailments of individual freedom. 

103



The more equal a society tries to be, the more it needs coercive measures. One of the most 

important responsibilities of a democratic government is to protect the basic rights of the weak 

from the oppression and exploitation of the strong. To protect the basic rights of the weak is the 

very reason why there has to be a government in the first place. To the strong, government is an 

unnecessary nuisance. 

2. Drawbacks of Legal Order 

Law is the most apparent means of coercion in the democratic states, and it is also the most 

effective one. Whether we like it or not, democratic society turned out to be a society whose 

order is secured and maintained primarily by the law. What makes it different from a nondemocratic 

society is that the laws of a democratic society are made under free consent of the 

majority of the people who are to be bound by them. 

But the law as a means to balance between freedom and equality has many drawbacks. 

In the first place, to force some individuals to behave according to certain prescribed ways 

against their free will contradicts the very ideal of freedom. The law may be the expression of 

“the general will” of the people (Rousseau), but not all of them are agreeable to the will of all 

concrete individuals. Every individual is different from others, and every concrete circumstance 

an individual confronts is different from those of others. But no law can respect every 

particularity in its legislation and administration. In the same vein, laws discourage creation 

and diversification by treating similar cases alike. To force some one to act according to 

prescribed rules with threats of physical pain fits typically to animals. In extreme cases, even in 

the democratic states, human beings are treated not unlike animals in the name of law. 

Maintaining order mainly by laws is basically against human dignity. 

Further securing and maintaining equality of all people by means of the law costs 

enormous amount of money and other social resources which, otherwise, could be more 

productively invested. Law enforcement institutions like police-stations, law courts, prisons, 

etc., administrators of the law like policemen, judges, lawyers, etc., and other related activities 

like legislations, court procedures, etc., consume a big part of our tax money. It is a pure waste 

of social resources, producing nothing positive. 

In order to protect rights of all people equally, every democratic state tends to legislate 

a multitude of laws and detailed regulations. The more democratic a state is, the more laws and 

regulations are required, and the more money is spent to maintain the legal order. Increasing 

lawsuits on traffic accidents or medical mal-practices push up insurance fees a driver or a 

patient must pay. Almost all of public parts of our civic life are regulated by the law, and 

problems are taken care of mostly by lawyers. Many people toil, they say, to pay their lawyers. 

104



Still more damaging to democratic ideal seems to be that laws can weaken individual 

sense of responsibility by leaving little room for personal decisions and driving people to 

behave mechanically. If citizens are accustomed to such culture of automatic obedience and 

uniform behaviors, they would be at loss when a new situation occurs that has no guidance of 

existing laws. In order for the citizens to feel secure, every new situation must have a new law 

to show them how to behave properly. It will require more laws to be legislated eventually, 

creating a vicious circle. Evidently, multiplication of laws and accompanying increase of the 

cost are big burdens of all democratic states. 

Proliferation of laws and exorbitant swell of public expenditure necessitate increase of 

the legal and economic power of the state, another paradox of democracy. Almost all 

democratic states have implicitly or explicitly tried to achieve the ideal of small government, 

but none seems to have succeeded. The power of the state is still the strongest in any society. 

The problem, of course, is that all power corrupts, and the state power is the most vulnerable to 

the temptation. The likelihood of corruption is proportional to the strength of the power. In 

order to prevent the state corruption, the power has to, beside the division of different branches 

of the government, be constantly checked by public media and civil society. As democracy has 

gradually come to require not a rule of the people but balance and check of the state powers, we 

need still more laws and regulations as well as accompanying cost increase to accomplish that. 

To keep our society democratic by means of legal coercion alone is impractical and impossible. 

There has to be some supplements. 

3. Moral Order as a Supplement 

One of the viable supplements to the rule of laws is moral order. Of the artificial measures to 

maintain social order, i.e., etiquettes, morality, and laws, the law is the most effective but least 

fitting to human dignity, while the etiquette is the most human but least effective. The ideal 

state Confucius dreamt was the one regulated purely by etiquettes (Li), but it is entirely 

impractical today. Temptations to amass one’s gains at the cost of others are so strong that pure 

good will and social sanction against impoliteness are not sufficiently powerful for an 

individual to resist them. Morality can be said to be somewhere in between the laws and 

etiquettes. It is more humane than the laws, yet more effective than the etiquettes. It honors 

individual free decision and responsibility, but checks individual exercise of freedom from 

harming others. The necessary sanctions not to harm others are not from the threats of physical 

pains or social and economic disadvantages that legal punishment implies but from the social 

pressure of disapproval and shame. Criticism and disapproval in the society against immorality 

is stronger than those for impoliteness. As such, morality can be more practical even though it is 

105



not as effective as the legal punishments. Even if we cannot achieve reasonable social order by 

morality alone, it would certainly help reduce the necessity of legal sanctions. The more moral a 

society is, the less it would require legal enforcements, and the more humane the society would 

become. All societies and democratic societies in particular should put all their possible efforts 

with all their social resources into making themselves as moral as possible. 

4. Rational Egoism as a Means of Moral Education 

Morality is a version of social contracts. In the former days, most philosophies and religions 

claimed that moral obligation was grounded on some a priori bases such as divine commands, 

the human reason or intuitions. These so-called deontological theories of moral obligation have 

lost their persuasive power in the secularized and pluralistic societies of the modern world. As 

Rawls’ contract theory of justice suggests, human societies, through trials and errors, have 

found out the wisdom that one has to abstain from harming others in order not to be harmed by 

others. If the strong are allowed to harm the weak at will, there is a great probability that they 

themselves become the victims of the still stronger or they get hurt when their fortunes are 

reversed. Therefore, moral culture is an embodiment of the collective discoveries of the 

communal strategies for conviviality, a product of an imaginary social contract. 

Of course, not all moral codes are reasonable and fair, but the principle of 

universalizability or reciprocity seems to lie underneath all of them. The fact that the Golden 

Rule is found even in the ancient cultures both in the East (Confucius’ Analects) and West (the 

Bible) indicates the possibility that the principle will be honored in all societies, if not already. 

The principle is usually classified as deontological because it is recognized by people intuitively. 

But it can also be explained teleologically in terms of probability. It is a sound reasoning that if 

you hurt others, there is a great probability that you may get retaliated directly or indirectly 

because no one likes to be treated unfairly. Or if you hurt others unfairly, it will contribute to 

making the society as a whole more disorderly and increasing the probability that you also get 

hurt unfairly by others. A good strategy not to get hurt by others, therefore, is not to hurt others 

in the first place. The principle may thus be a crystallization of historical experiences of people 

so much egoistic as not to want to be hurt by others. 

Such a version of rational egoism is a good strategy for moral education, too. Moral 

virtues, no matter how noble and necessary they are, mean very little unless people are 

persuaded to accept them. It is one of the main weaknesses of the deontological theories of 

moral obligation. Mathematical or physical theories have their own intrinsic values and validity 

even if they are not practical. But ethics is a practical philosophy, and if it is not practiced by 

concrete individuals in their daily lives, it is simply worthless. A good ethical theory or moral 

106



principle, therefore, must have persuasive powers for people to honor and feel obliged to follow 

them. But in the age of disenchantment (Max Weber) neither divine commands nor human 

reason can provide any a priori ground for moral obligation sufficiently persuasive to put them 

in practices. Even the principle of universalizability, if asserted as a deontological theory, is not 

strong enough to persuade everyone to act according to it. One can easily excuse oneself by 

saying, ‘I am simply unique’ or ‘my circumstance is special that it cannot be repeated or 

replaced by others.’ 

As an ethical theory, rational egoism seems to contain a contradiction in itself. The 

very reason why we need morality is primarily because people are egoistic. How can that 

egoism motivate moral behaviors? Rationality, as an ability to calculate one’s ultimate benefits, 

however, can overcome the logical contradiction. Immoral acts may help one to harvest 

immediate gains, but there is greater probability than otherwise that the harms they necessarily 

incur upon others would be retaliated. The better strategy is to follow moral principles like that 

of universalizability. 

Pleasure and pain are asymmetrical; people try to avoid pain more than they seek 

pleasure. If it is persuaded that one’s immoral act that generate immediate pleasure will bring 

as much pain as the pleasure, a rational person will abstain from the act, not only because he or 

she is rational but also because he or she is selfish. Of course, the probability that immoral acts 

get retaliated justly depends upon how well ordered the society is. The more ordered a society 

is, the greater is the probability that immoral acts cause pains upon the persons who have 

performed them. It is responsibility of all mature citizens of the society to make the society as 

ordered as possible. The greater number of moral people is, the more ordered the society 

becomes, and the more ordered a society is, the more moral its people become. We have to 

mobilize, therefore, all possible resources to produce as many morally responsible citizens as 

possible. Once a minimal justice is secured in the society, the desires for self-interest may serve 

as one of the most effective resources of moral education. 

The reciprocal relationship of influences between the morality of a society and that of 

its individual members is valid also between the media and their users. The more trustworthy 

media are, the more mature people would become, and vice versa. 

5. Importance of Media Ethics for Democracy 

The importance of media in a democratic society is indisputable. No functioning democracy is 

possible without allowing its citizens easy access to, freedom of and criticism on, and diversity 

of the media. In short, the quality of media represents and determines the quality of democracy. 

But so far relatively less attention has been paid to media ethics. No matter how many 

107



newspapers, broadcastings, internet portal sites, magazines there are and how free they are 

from external pressure, if they are not sufficiently trustworthy, they would not contribute much 

for the development and proper functioning of democracy. Lack of trust in the media is one of 

the common and most lethal weaknesses of immature democracies. 

Of course, media ethics can be meaningfully discussed when there is sufficient 

freedom of the press. Any talk on ethical decision or moral responsibility makes sense only 

when one has the ability and possibility to choose among alternatives, and media ethics 

presupposes that there is at least some form of democracy. But absence of external coercion is 

not enough for media to fulfill its proper task for democracy. On the contrary, free press can 

sometimes lead the society into a chaos and impede rather than facilitate real growth of 

democracy. Media reports and comments should be above all accurate and fair. Once the media 

lose the credibility of the users, citizens are in disarray and democracy staggers. Sometimes, 

absence of information is better than wrong information in making correct decisions that are 

essential for a healthy democracy. 

In democracy the opinions of the people rule the state. Since they are articulated and 

formulated mainly by the media, today the media, in fact, rule. It is still more so in the 

information societies. Parliamentarians are supposed to represent the opinions and interests of 

the people and to listen to their opinions by direct contacts or letter writings. But in the 

information society, they depend more upon what the media report than upon what they gather 

directly through personal contacts with the people. The influence of the media today is greater 

than ever before. Influence implies power, and the media has become one of the most powerful 

source of influence on people in a democratic society. It is, indeed, an “emperor without 

crown.” 

Democracy is especially vulnerable to unreliable media because the general public, the 

ones who are finally responsible for decision, is in general less critical than the elites to the 

information they get from the media; people in the immature democracies especially tend to 

trust whatever the public media report and are easily swayed by them. Dictators or oligarchy 

are not interested in the opinions of the people in the first place, but they are also relatively 

more critical to and suspicious of any information they get, even those from few selected 

professionals or obliging associates. But the general public does not possess such measure of 

wary minds and are easily misled by the media. This fact reinforces the temptation of the media 

to misuse their influences. 

One of the most important roles of the media is criticism of social evils of various kinds, 

especially, the abuses of power and influence of the state. One of the ideals of democracy is to 

allow all members of the society as much freedom as possible and to facilitate them to enjoy full 

autonomy. Absence of coercions implies, however, an inherent danger of the misusing the 

108



freedom on the part of the strong and victimizing the weak. The public media have the ability 

and responsibility to expose those abuses and criticize them. Any criticism or correction, if it is 

to be truly effective, requires moral authority. A medium that has lost its moral authority 

forfeits its proper task and democracy suffers. Criticisms by immoral media breed cynicism 

rather than correction both to the criticized and the general public. 

There are many reasons why the ethical aspect of the media has received, considering 

its significance in a democracy, relatively little attentions in all societies and particularly in 

young democracies. It is not uncommon to find cases in which even the media with good 

reputation and high credibility sometimes transmit incorrect information. Such cases serve to 

excuse and encourage reporters in immature democracies to hide, falsify, fabricate, exaggerate, 

simplify, hide, or downplay facts as the circumstances require. 

Another reason for the neglect is that it is not easy to pinpoint ethical flaws of the 

media compared to other kinds of mistakes. The existence, number, freedom, diversity of the 

media are easily noticed and the insufficiency of them are immediately discernible to many 

casual eyes. But the credibility of the media is somewhat relative and the falsity of the 

information is not often immediately recognized by the general users. Only a few critical minds 

and careful and often costly investigations can uncover the falsity or partiality of the 

information communicated by media. No ordinary citizen has the time, money, ability, or the 

courage to probe the falsity of media information. In the advanced civil societies, NGO’s 

concerned with media, with expertise and resources, can delve into the wrongs of the media 

information, and the victims of false or unfair reports can appeal to legal authorities for 

rectification. But in the nascent democracies, such possibilities are limited, and this emboldens 

the media to neglect ethics even further. 

6. Causes of Media Corruptions 

All power corrupts, and the media are not an exception. Temptation to corruptions is 

proportional to the power one exercises. Like the corruptions in the politics, corruption of the 

media is very poisonous to the healthy development of democracy. Unethical practice erodes 

public confidence, undermines professionalism and makes a mockery of ethical values of the 

society in general. 

Unfortunately, there are numerous sources of media corruptions. 

109



(1) Government’s pressure: 

In the countries with immature democracies, the power holders in the government are 

constantly tempted to manipulate the public opinion and information. Sometimes, the 

government is forced to do so for justifiable reasons. If the public is already contaminated by 

false information or opinion that are detrimental to democratic governance or even to national 

security and if the manipulation of the public opinion through mass media is only viable 

alternative, the government may beg for cooperation of the media. If the media do not oblige, it 

can put pressure upon the media to manipulate information. But such cases are relatively rare. 

More common cases are unjustifiable pressures from the dishonest and ambitious politicians 

trying to hide their weaknesses or to hold on to the power beyond the legitimate period and 

measure. In some countries like Egypt and North Korea, the government controls media 

directly. In other cases like Mexico the government controls the distribution of media. In many 

young democratic countries, the freedom and political neutrality is guaranteed on the paper 

only but not in reality. 

If the medium itself has some moral or legal weakness, it succumbs more easily to the 

pressures from the political power. It can further hurt the credibility and add another weakness 

upon the existing ones, and a vicious circle takes place. 

Not only the pressure but temptation from the political power corrupts the media and 

journalists. Media workers who have ambition for political career or high post in the 

government need favor of those who have influence in appointments. Such workers are easily 

tempted to buy the favor with their asset, which is their capability to manipulate information. 

Many Korean journalists turned politicians or high functionaries in the government have been 

criticized for this evil and such criticisms are not always baseless. 

(2) Temptations from the business: 

Another source of media corruption is business corporations, and it is the temptation of the 

money. In the age of mass consumption and of consumers’ power, business corporations need 

favorable opinion of the consumers more than anything else, and it is so today more than any 

time before. Big multinational corporations need to create not only good impression of their 

products but also their general corporate image so much that they pour enormous amount of 

money in image advertisements. Nothing serves the purpose better than a favorable report or 

evaluation of the company by a public medium that is supposedly fair and objective. Both the 

corporation and the media are tempted to manipulate the reports or evaluations if a true and 

fair report or evaluation cannot serve the purpose sufficiently. Outright bribery to journalists 

110



and editors is common in many countries. In 2003, the Institute for Public Relations Research 

and Education and the International Public Relations Association released a comprehensive 

index that ranks 66 nations for the likelihood of print journalists’ seeking or accepting cash for 

news coverage. 

Assignment of expensive business advertisements is a seemingly legal way of 

influencing the media as this allows them to maintain close rapport with advertising companies. 

In extreme cases, a company uses assigning advertisement as a form of bribery or rebate to the 

media in exchange for withholding revelation of its wrongdoings including even crimes or 

weaknesses. Few media really scrutinize to check the validity of the contents of the 

advertisements they carry. While the major media that so far have enjoyed credibility are more 

tempted because of their great influences they have on general public, the smaller ones are 

more vulnerable to such temptations because of their weak financial positions. Some small local 

papers in Korea cannot even pay their reporters, so they have to find a way to generate their 

own income by exploiting suspects of crimes and extracting advertisements. Not only 

individual reporters are susceptible to the danger, but in many cases, financially fragile 

companies misuse their influences for financial gains by threatening and coaxing business 

corporations. 

(3) Sensationalism and Ambition 

In the mass consumption society, access to a big number of users of the media means power: big 

revenue from commercials and great political influence on voters. It is natural, therefore, that all 

media try to attract as many users as possible. If all users were as mature and critical as they 

should be, the media would employ the textbook method of reporting facts as objective as 

possible and evaluate and criticize as fairly as possible, but in reality, the majority of the people 

are not so. As Ortega y Gasset calls it, people in the most societies turn to a ‘mass’. They are 

uncritical, irresponsible, self-centered, seeking immediate pleasures and finding gossips around 

celebrities and scores of sport games more interesting than environmental pollutions or 

international politics. Quantity counts more than quality, and media are more inclined to appeal 

to the mass and to adjust themselves to the unruly taste of the mass. Insignificant facts are 

exaggerated and glossed over, and important facts are left unattended according to the taste of 

the mass. Promiscuous photos, cartoons, and stories are being printed on the front pages. 

Curiosity determines news value, and sensationalism is more or less inherent in the media. 

They say that if a dog bites a man, it has no news value, but if a man bites a dog, it gets certainly 

reported. Increase in circulation means increased profits both from subscriptions and more from 

advertisement. Ambitions of individual journalist for recognition and prominence also produce 

111



fabricated or exaggerated reports. Inevitably facts are distorted and many of them inflict unfair 

damages to some people. 

7. Media Ethics and Moral Consciousness in Democratic Society 

We have said that the more ordered a society is, the more moral the members become. We have 

to fully recognize the decisive influence of the moral culture of a society upon its members. The 

majority of ordinary citizens do not consciously make a new decision for every act. In most 

cases, they simply act according to their personal habits and/or follow others in the community 

would behave in the similar circumstances. We are tempted to assert with the collectivists that 

the existing culture determines the next one as well as behaviors of individuals living in the 

culture. Any moral education, if it is to be effective, should ignore the influence of the 

community upon individuals. 

But we have also said that the greater the number of moral people is, the more well 

ordered the society becomes. Since a society as such lacks free will or real sense of responsibility, 

we have to start with conscious persons first in our moral education. Information makes sense 

only to the beings which have consciousness. You cannot inform or convince a society as such. 

Only the persons can be educated. 

In the age when information occupies a central stage in a society, mass media are one 

of the most important educators of the citizens. Providing information itself is already a form of 

education. The content of one’s consciousness determines how one thinks and makes a 

judgment, and the content consists mainly of what one hears and sees. If there is anything new 

appeared in one’s consciousness, it is created on the basis of what one already has in his or her 

consciousness. Today people hear and see new things most of time through what the mass 

media deliver to them, not through sermons, classics, or even books. Without much 

exaggeration, therefore, we can say that the mass media determines the consciousness of the 

most citizens who subscribe to it. This means that the educative significance of the mass media 

cannot be overestimated. 

Furthermore, the media do much more than simply transmitting knowledge and facts; 

they are instilling values at the same time. Not only through what they say and show but also 

by the simple fact alone that the mass media exist as free press and the way they function, they 

are instilling democratic values in every citizens’ consciousness. Of course, responsible media 

should pay their utmost attention to what they say and show; the contents of information have 

to be worthy knowing by being useful, valuable, interesting and edifying. But unless the reports 

and comments are true and fair, they are not worthy as educational material for the citizens in 

teaching democratic values. As in classroom teaching, the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ is 

112



equally important in the education through media. Not only what the teachers teach but also 

how they teach influences students. Especially in the value education, the hidden curriculum is 

more important than the open one. No matter how pertinent and true the contents of an 

educational program may be made of, they can have little effect on moral education unless they 

are imparted truly and fairly. Moral education done in an immoral way is not simply ineffective 

but harmful fostering moral cynicism among students, a disease worse than immorality itself 

because it debilitates any further moral education. Insufficient attention to this fact is one of the 

main reasons why moral education fails miserably in Korea. 

It is true that media ethics is not an island isolated from the general moral culture of 

the society. It is asking too much from the media to expect that they are far superior to and 

ahead of the morality of the citizens in general. But either one has to initiate so that a spiral of 

improvement may take place, and it has to be media rather than the citizenry. They are more 

privileged in many respects than citizens and have greater educational responsibility. 

Unfortunately, however, most media in immature democracies are not sufficiently aware of this 

responsibility. On the contrary, they oftentimes exploit the chaotic situation of the society for 

their own benefits in an immoral or illegal manner. The media that have lost credibility, of 

course, cannot contribute anything to achieving more mature democracy or sound moral 

culture; however, still worse, they make themselves worthless and useless. Integrity of media, 

therefore, is not only a prerequisite for a healthy moral culture and a mature democracy but 

also a minimal guarantee of their own survival and lasting value. 

8. Media Watch and Self-Respect 

The core of democracy is balance and check of powers. No power whether it is the state or 

media would remain transparent and fair for a long period of time unless it is constantly 

watched and criticized. The problem with immature democracies is that media watch and check 

is not easy and even impossible in some cases. If the media unite themselves in the cartel of 

corruption, there is no possibility for common people outside the media world to discern 

whether any press is credible or not. To take a critical look at the media, you need either critical 

subscribers or special NGOs which can judge the integrity of certain press or a special sort of 

journalism entirely devoted to the criticism of fellow media. But they both presuppose already a 

sufficiently mature democracy. Only in a fairly advanced democracy, citizens can afford time 

and courage to organize media watch NGOs. NGOs can, however, properly fulfill their task 

only when the media transparently reveal their voices and activities to citizens. If there is no 

meaningful interaction between NGOs and the media, the NGOs’ critical pressure will be 

113



powerless. Therefore, media criticism, whether done by other media or media watch NGOs, is 

only possible where diversity and freedom of press is fairly guaranteed. 

Independent bodies like the Press Arbitration Commission may perform certain kinds 

of censorship on irresponsible media by listening grievances of those who feel they have been 

misrepresented or unfairly treated by the media and arbitrating between them. They put some 

pressure upon journalists to be more careful and fair. But their effects are limited to special 

cases of reports. 

Ultimately, it is journalists themselves who should be fair and responsible so that the 

media can truly fulfill their proper task in a democratic society. All the rest such as critical 

subscribers, media watch NGOs, or arbitration commissions, as useful as they can be, are at 

most supplementary. In a young democracy, journalists are relatively more educated, and 

economically and socially more secured than the average people in the society. Their relative 

privileges should help them resist immoral temptations better than other fellow citizens. Also, 

they enjoy social recognition, dignity and self-respect to a certain degree. All these advantages 

should be important moral resources for them to be responsible for the advancement of 

democracy. 

But there is no reason why we should limit our appeal to one or two resources for 

improvement of media ethics. All available resources we have access to should be mobilized as 

a way to upgrade the media ethics as it can serve as a pivotal strategy to advance democracy. 

114

Discussion Paper on ‘The Media Ethics: Democracy and Citizen’s Consciousness of Ethics’ 


Discussant: Prof. KIM Hyun-Joo, Kwangwoon University 

Thanks to the presenter's thorough review on the literature, we begin to fully grasp the 

theoretical foundations of frequently cited concepts of civil ethics, media ethics, and media 

power, etc . Moreover, the elaborated writing and logic made us feel comforable to read. 

Although lacking examples in concrete levels, the presentation brings forth a strong implication 

on a variety of issues revolving around the contemporary media in 'the immature democracies,' 

including Korea. Followings are some additional comments. 

 

For a society to grow into a full-fledged democracy, its citizens have to be rational. With the 

limitation of 'average of deficiency' in mind, however, we need to ponder on 'rational 

egoism.' At this point, we have to bring up the concept of civic mind or civility, which should 

be fostered by the mass media. It is more so because democracy is a social system of 

guaranteeing ideological pluralism. 

I agree to the presenter's proposition that the more equal a socity tries to be, the more it needs 

coercive measures, the more curtailment of individual freedom. What most of the immature 

democracies show in common is that democracy resides only in the verbal package without 

being internalized in citizens' mind nor institutionalized in everyday practices. 

Another issue to be raised here is the dilemma of media: following majority opinions or 

initiating wholesome descent viewpoints. If media try to initiate the public opinion, they may 

easily fall to a complaint of being too normative or instructional. Conflict between individual 

freedom and public interest is another issue of attention. It is difficult to come to an agreement 

regarding what public interest entails because public interest varies depending upon the time 

frame and the structure of society. 

Nevertheless, we conclude the role of media in a democracy: 

- Teaching people a democratic process 

- Fostering citizens civility 

- Providing substantive information and knowledge necessary for making a rational political 

decision (e.g., voting) 

115


Another concern is digitial divide and lack of digital readiness of the majority of people in an 

immature democracy. Not a few people lack an ability to select quality information out of 

irrelevant (or even harmful) information. 

 

As society becomes more complex, it needs more laws and regulations, which in turn increases 

social and adminstrial costs to an exponential degree. As such, the power of law enforcing or 

legislating agencies grows accordingly. Fundamental questions are: If the role of media is 

monitoring political power, then who monitors media? If NGO's monitors media, and then 

who monitors NGO's? 

 

In an era flooded by multimedia multichannels, the trational definitions of media do not fit 

well. The new media, in its conception stage, have not had enough time and resources to 

prepare, not alone to practice, the ethical and journalic codes. Morality is not only a matter of 

ethics and religion. Media's awareness of social responsibility as public agent should be 

emphasized. 

In that sense, media are supposed to be owned and controlled by public sectors, where in fact 

they are privately owned or operated in most cases. Fragile financial status in a time of harsh 

competition among media posits another concern. One thing particularly worried is an 

increased likelihood of pressures from advertisers (mostly conglomerates). Viewrs or media 

consumers also need scrutiny. 

The connection between media and political power should be abolished. There seems to be a 

vicious circle between the two. As media support political power, and political power in turn 

recruits the 'placating' journalists as a reward. This is how the vicious circle operates. As such, 

quite a few journalists make use of media for accomplishing his or her ambitions. 

 

I am quite open toward the entertainment function of media. Particularly in an immature 

democarcy, which tends to lack social infrastrures for wholesome leisure opportunities, media 

can be the major source of leisure. In that sense, providing wholesome and enjoyable 

entertainment materials consists a crucial part of media's public service. 

 

Media themselves are educational institution. Then issue is what kind of education is urgent 

for the citizen. The answer depends upon the developmental stages of society. We also have 

116


to have a confidence on the citizens' judgmental ability. What do media have to prepare their 

citizens? To socialize them as docile, rule-abiding citizens? Or to make them aware of 

inequalities and injustice of the exsiting system (or status-quo) and inform them of the methods 

of straightening out the abnormalities of their society? That is a crucial point. 

In a nutshell, journalist is not simply a technician. Being a journalist adds much more to it. 

Journalist should take pride in, and at the same time take responsibility of, being a power 

elite. The utmost importance should be given to the media's awareness of accountability as a 

public servant, and the internalization of the spirit of 'nobles obilige' in their everyday business. 

117

[PART I Discussion Summary] 

PART I Discussion Summary 


Presenter: YOON Young-Tae 

Discussant: CHO Maingki 

The next discussant was Cho Maingki. He briefly raised three points. First, the speaker did not 

explain the relationship between social and rational action. Second, the speaker argued that the 

internet will serve as a good public sphere, but Cho felt that this was too optimistic. Third, Cho 

noted that the concept of emancipation for human society and human being was too poorly 

described. While rational, social, and communicative actions are all important, the 

communication aspect was not fully explained by Yoon. 

Finally, the concept of the public sphere emerged in the 17 th century out of social 

revolutions. But there is also the concept of the private sphere discussed by Habermas, who 

regarded it as a bourgeois revolution. Habermas used the concept of the coffeehouse to 

illustrate the public sphere, which is quite different from the current internet situation. 

However, Cho asks whether the coffeehouse of that time is the same as the internet now. Also, 

the concept of private individualism arose during that time period as well, so Cho questions 

what impact it had. During the feudal age, people were bound by religion, but the emergence of 

the public sphere enabled liberation. 

Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Age 

Presenter: GUAN Shijie 

Discussant: KIM Seo-joong 

Kim Seo-joong from SungKongHoe University began by noting that he both studies and 

practices within the media movement. He agreed with Guan Shijie’s assertion that duties are as 

important as freedoms. Looking at the current situation, we are only stressing rights and 

neglecting duties. If this continues, world peace will be in danger. Thus there is a need for 

international laws, definitions, and concepts regarding rights and duties. These are very good 

points in terms of freedom of expression. However, he added some points that seemed to be 

missing from Guan’s paper. Specifically, Guan stressed duties in terms of freedom of 

expression, but the paper only discussed this topic from the point of view of personal rights. In 

that case, there will be conflict between individual rights and duties. While that’s important, it’s 

118


also necessary to look at public rights rather than private rights. In other words, it’s not just 

about securing one’s own rights but guaranteeing others as well. Kim then quoted J. Mill 

regarding how the public way of thinking has only been interpreted from individual 

viewpoints, and he stressed the need to get away from this tendency. In democracy, freedom of 

expression is important for guaranteeing the principles of democracy. The concept of freedom 

of expression should encompass banning those expressions that damage the principles of 

democracy. Kim then noted that the word “democracy” itself different in meaning among 

countries. Thus, there is a need for further research to reflect on these varying concepts. Other 

aspects of freedom of expression can be examined without inflicting on personal rights. 

Kim’s second comment on the paper was in regards to the structure of the paper. 

He noted that there were many helpful implications, but if the paper is to be more helpful, it 

should have more specific or detailed suggestions. For example, the paper raises the need for 

international laws, but what terminology can be used in this process, and what would the most 

appropriate method of legislation be? Also, who should be engaged in the process? 

Thirdly, Kim noted that Guan used the term “digital age.” The internet is important in 

the digital sphere, and communications technology has enabled the participation of citizens. In 

that respect, where the internet is more pervasive, there is a need for more democratic 

participation. However, the situation is not so positive. Before discussing the need for 

international laws, we should first identify the problems that accompany the digital age and the 

internet. This is true for other countries, but it is especially true for Korea where much of the 

commentary on the internet is blasphemous and prejudiced in nature. Such comments are a 

hindrance to democratic participation. 

Finally, Kim pointed out that various issues can be raised from a global trade and 

economic viewpoint. While international laws may facilitate democracy, there may be negative 

side effects as globalization can sometimes suppress cultural diversity and neglect certain 

countries. Thus, as an improvement to the paper, the darker side of globalization should be 

discussed before proposing the establishment of international laws. 

Democracy and Communication Are Two Sides of the Same Coin 

Presenter: Zahid Hussein 

Discussant: LEE Min Kyu 

Lee Min Kyu began by noting that the presenter focused on democracy and communication, 

respectability and diversity. He then noted that while he’s not completely familiar with the 

situation in Pakistan, it seems that information technology there is growing rapidly as in South 

119


Korea. There are two times as many mobile phones as traditional phones, and the mobile 

phones are the cheapest in the world. Thus, Pakistan and South Korea share some similar 

experiences regarding changes in communication. But Lee added two additional factors to 

improving communication and democracy. Firstly, there is a tendency to rely on the economy 

and technological developments to improve democracy, but cultural factors must also be 

considered. Communication and democracy are closely connected. And without democratic 

improvement, economic development is meaningless. Currently, South Korea has strong 

communication with Western countries but very little with the more heavily populated Islamic 

countries. Thus, there is a need for more experience in communicating with non-Western 

countries. Increased communication and official and unofficial exchanges of ideas with 

countries like Pakistan and China would be a boon to South Korea. Lee concluded by agreeing 

with Hussein’s argument regarding the need for a more open-minded approach to 

communication and the consideration of cultural factors. 

The Media Ethics 

Presenter: SON Bong-ho 

Discussant: KIM Hyun-Joo 

Kim began by stating that he had looked up the roots of words related to media ethics in 

English, and he argued that democracy in Korea is still in an immature stage. He added that 

there are many countries facing the same situation. What, then, do people consider to be 

“radical”, “reasonable”? The presenters discussed the concept of rational people, e.g. civil 

mindedness. Immature democracies such as Korea have adopted their systems intact and think 

that they’re the best. Formally, these systems may appear to be perfect, but democracy is not yet 

innate in the minds of the people or part of their everyday practice. In such cases, should the 

media follow the majority opinion or should they espouse a more wholesome viewpoint. 

Regarding conflict with public interests in South Korea, how are these defined, and what is 

“public interest” in South Korea? This issue has been discussed under the Roh Moo-hyun 

administration, but there is no criteria for the media regarding this. What is the role of the 

media within a democracy? Kim argues that media should teach the processes of democracy, 

consciousness, etc., while being aware of its role. Also, the issue of the digital divide should be 

revised, and new regulations affecting new media have to be drafted. This means that 

governments and states have a great deal of power and must be monitored by the media and 

NGOs. But who then watches over the media and the NGOs? Government corruption isn’t 

discussed anymore since the administration has been democratized. But when the media is 

120


privately owned, it is more easily corrupted. So this, too, is a problem that must be solved. Kim 

concluded by raising some other problematic issues, such as problems of funding and 

viewership, commercialization of the media, and severing the links between media and power. 

Likewise, journalistic ambition and public popularity raises new problems. Media curriculums 

can’t be concentrated in only one doctrine. South Korea has an ombudsman program to 

regulate broadcasting, but there are still conflicts between media and democracy. 

General Discussion 

Tavakol Mohammed spoke first by addressing the issue of rights vs. duties. He asks whether 

we should establish duties because of our rights, or vice versa. If there is a danger in telling the 

truth, should we censor ourselves? In his view, duties and rights won’t confront each other, and 

one can’t be sacrificed for the other. If one does not tell the truth because of the threat of danger, 

then there will be too many reasons for not telling the truth, globally. Duties and rights must 

both be expressed; lies are not justified. Sometimes the mass media lies, and it must be 

confronted. The second problem Mohammed raised was the lack of international law. Here, too, 

he raises the question of whether we are to follow one single international law to dominate the 

whole world? Or should there be a distinction between east and west, Islam and Christianity, 

etc. If we believe in diversity, then why have just one international law, and will we all submit 

to only one law? 

John Benson began by stating that for a forum like this, it is important to be exposed 

to a range of views without censorship. All ideas about media in the globalized world must be 

presented without limit. If we can’t talk here about what’s important to us, then how can we 

talk about diversity within our own cultural spaces? If anything is important, it’s the fact that 

the media, however controversial, helps to bring political issues to the level of dinner table 

conversation in a way that was never expected. He also raised a point about structure—in a 

globalized world, how can there be any kind of media regulation that everyone will submit to. 

In the end, it goes back to the issue raised by Son Bong-ho, i.e. morality and respect. The world 

is moving to a point where more people and countries will need to confront issues of ethics. The 

principle of an effective law is whether it can be enforced. People must live democratically, that 

is, through agreement and respect. 

In response to the discussion of his paper, Guan Shijie began by noting that in 

Chinese, the words for duty and responsibility are the same. When he prepared his discussion 

on international laws, the word most commonly used in English was “duty”, so he used it as 

well. Regarding the second question raised, he researched terminology for this discussion, but 

121


didn’t have further detail about it. His aim was primarily to raise international attention to the 

need to discuss democracy and the principles of democracy, including elections and rule of law. 

If there is to be an international community or society, then there will be a need for an 

international arm to implement law. Regarding the third question about the “digital age”, 

ordinary people are increasingly able to participate in international discussions via the internet. 

In China, over 113 million people use the internet, and 43% of Chinese internet users use 

forums for political discussions, blogs, etc. Thus, there is a close relationship between ordinary 

political participation and the digital age. Finally, regarding whether a single international law 

would infringe upon the rights of smaller countries, Guan argues that on the contrary, proper 

international laws would protect them. He offered the example of the convention of cultural 

diversity that protects multiple countries. 

122




Part II. Educational Approach 

• “The Present Situation of Media Education and the Prospects for 

Global Media Education” Prof. John Benson, Australia 

• “Internet and Media Education” Prof. KIM Kitai, ROK 

• “Citizen, Media, Democracy: Freedom of Expression in Digital 

Age” Prof. Malee Boonsiripunth, Thailand 

• “Democratic Civic Education in Korea: The Necessity of 

Democratic Civic Education and Its Developmental Direction” 

Prof. CHUN Tuk Chu, ROK 

• “ICT, Education, and Culture in the Knowledge Society: Special 

Reference to Iran” Prof. Tavakol Mohamed, Iran 

• “Development of DOI and DOI-Based Policy” Dr. CHO Cheung 

Moon, ROK 


미디어 교육의 현 상황과 전 세계적 미디어 교육의 전망 

The Present Situation of Media Education 

and the Prospects for Global Media Education 



Prof. John Benson 

La Trobe University, Australia 

The central themes of this conference are media and democracy in the knowledge society. 

The topic of this particular session which I have been asked to address is an educational 

approach to the conference themes. In particular the topic of media education in the knowledge 

society. There are two primary questions which follow from the above which this presentation 

will address and these are: 

(1) What is the current situation of media education and does it help us to consider the 

conference themes; and 

(2) How can we improve the prospects for global media education to enhance the 

functioning of the media and democracy in the knowledge society? 

Media Education: The Current Situation: 

Media education is a growing and complex area which cannot be fully canvassed here but a 

quick sketch or overview, as a background to what follows later in this paper is required. 

Initially, I am concerned with the formal traditional school-based model of media education. 

However, later comments are also directed toward a much broader community based 

understanding of media education. 

Briefly, formal media education in the school system has as its goal the task of helping 

students understand the role of the media in society and in their own lives. 

It should also realistically encourage and inform students about the means by which they 

can competently engage with and participate in the media as citizens and consumers. 

In doing this, media education must necessarily deal with a variety of different fields of 

knowledge. Some of this knowledge is derived from well-known disciplines such as, language, 

ethics, politics, sociology, psychology, science and the arts. Other conceptual issues and ideas 

such as representation, narrative, agency and discourse for example, have a specific application 

125




in media education as methodological approaches which encourage participants to examine a 

vast range of media texts, forms, audiences and social phenomena in historical and contemporary 

contexts. 

Reasonably sophisticated media education curriculum and other school-based media 

courses have emerged in western industrialized countries such as Australia and the U.K., in a 

variety of different configurations for more than 50 years. Increasingly, in recent years, media 

curriculum is also slowly emerging from most other regions including Africa and the Pacific 

Islands so that it now has a presence in many educations systems. 

The specific pedagogical origin of media education is usually related to the particular 

educational requirements and social determinants in individual societies at the time it emerged. 

Some media education has evolved from a “film appreciation or film as literature” tradition, 

while others evolved from a production or practical/creative tradition, where the typical 

emphasis was concentrated on the development of media production skills. 

Perhaps the most common origin or tradition of media education has been the “moral 

protection” tradition which developed from the now largely discredited effects model of media: 

namely, the curriculum designed to inoculate students against assumed harmful and pernicious 

effects of the media. Fortunately, this protection model of media curriculum is slowly fading 

away and media education based on sustainable research into policy, theory, technology, textual 

analysis, and even the pleasure and entertainment aspects of media, for example, informs the 

construction and design of media curriculum as does a complex understanding of modern 

pedagogical practice. 

At its heart media education is therefore “teaching and learning about the media; media 

literacy is the outcome- the knowledge and skill learners acquire.” (Buckingham 2003, p. 4) 

Media educators would argue that this is essential knowledge for current and future citizens in 

the new global landscape and therefore a cornerstone of any contemporary educational system 

which aims to enable the realization of individual human potential and adequately prepare its 

young people for life in the modern world. Furthermore, they claim the new media technologies 

and institutions have changed the spatial and temporal conditions of our existence to the point 

where the media are now part of the “general texture of experience…. which touches the 

grounded nature of life in the world, [and] …. those aspects of experience which we take for 

granted and which we must survive if we are to live and communicate with each other.” 

(Silverstone 1999, p.2) 

126




Media Education and the Knowledge Society 

It is a core belief of the democratic process that a free, unrestricted and open media is an essential 

requirement for the effective operation of democracy. 

The concept is based on the fact that ideally a free media functions as a bulwark against the 

excessive power of the state and allows the oxygen of accurate information and evidence from 

the affairs of the day to permeate through the whole society informing enfranchised citizens so 

that they may assess and periodically judge those entrusted with the power to administer their 

state. 

The degree of freedom experienced by the media or “fourth estate” is a measure of the 

democratic health of a society and this is most sharply focussed in the area of news and current 

affairs journalism. 

However, is this ideal the actual experience of the democratic process of our future 

citizens in relation to their encounters with the news and current affairs in the knowledge 

society? 

In “Tuned Out,” David Mindich’s qualitative study of young people in the USA and their 

use of the news media he found that fewer than 28% of young people in their mid -30s read a 

newspaper everyday and that the major audience for CNN was over 60 years old. 

If we think young people had gone to the Internet for their news then this would be 

incorrect as Mindich found only11% logged on to the net for their news and information while 

most use the net for personal messaging and entertainment. (Mindich 2005, pp. 7-9) 

Perhaps more alarming, Mindich suggests most non-readers of news “believe the 

political process is morally bankrupt and completely insulated from public pressure.” 

He also contends that “political news is only relevant to people who still believe that the 

political structure is responsive” to public sentiment and that people no longer have “trust in the 

media” or even know how “government works or how to hold it accountable.” 

Moreover, he found young people “tuned out” from all forms of mainstream news and 

perhaps this was symptomatic of less genuine engagement with the society and evidence of a 

general decline in the nations social capital. 

In a more detailed and targeted qualitative study of young teenagers in both the UK and 

USA and their use and engagement with news particularly political news –the news that is 

assumed to be the life blood of the democratic process Buckingham (2000) found that discussions 

of politics ….. “were frequently suffused with cynicism.” 

127




He states politicians were condemned not merely as boring, but also as a corrupt, 

uncaring, insincere and self interested, and politics was dismissed as a kind of dishonest game 

which has little relevance to the students everyday lives and concerns. 

Importantly, Buckingham believes that we should not interpret this alienation from 

politics in a negative way as “apathy or ignorance” but as a result of young peoples‘ exclusion 

from that domain, in effect, as a response to disenfranchisement” from the political process and 

from formal participation in the public sphere and perhaps it is that disenfranchisement that we 

need to rethink. This rethinking of the notion of citizenship might even be extended and 

Buckingham asserts that “it is hard to see why adult rights and responsibilities should not be 

extended at least to contemporary teenagers” so that they may be regarded as “actual citizens.” 

(Buckingham 2000, pp. 218-9) 

Turner (2005) in his analysis of news and current affairs programs in Australia found a 

similar trend with younger people “actively repelled, not just uninterested in the current 

examples of the format.” 

He also observed that “they find it visually boring, narrowly conservative in the range of 

points of view it canvasses, and dependant upon anchor persons with little appeal to their age 

group, but they also resent the fact that such programs routinely treat youth culture as an object 

of derision, moral panic, or prurience. Increasingly, this younger demographic is finding its 

news and current affairs content in other formats-…..comedy/chatshows” (Turner 2005, p. 3) 

If the research considered above has accurately captured the state of the media as an 

essential political information provider for its citizens then while the mainstream media and 

political parties may believe that they address the imagined nation in their news broadcasts, 

newspapers, doorstop interviews and press conferences, the actual nation, particularly its 

younger generations are not reading, watching or listening to what is written or broadcast as 

mainstream traditional political news. 

As the major media institutions and mainstream political parties embrace each other in a 

constant repetition of the same choreographed routine of what ultimately amounts to a top-down 

model of information management and control masquerading as information dissemination - the 

more the knowledge society’s younger generations are turning off both current affairs, news and 

institutional party politics. Effectively, this leaves the news and journalism about the affairs of the 

state as a space for a public conversation between the political and media elites to which only 

older citizens and political insiders are listening. 

128




This is a remarkable contradiction in the way journalistic news and information is 

supposed to function as part of the democratic project and as the source of citizen enlightenment 

in the knowledge society. 

But importantly, this research also clearly demonstrates that younger citizens are not 

unconcerned about political and media issues with many instances in each study suggesting that 

while mainstream politics and its representation in the media is fast losing its young audience 

other forms of political involvement and care about the nature of the community are strongly 

pursued by those turning off the media as a news source. 

Political concern about the environment, world poverty on a global scale and local issues 

related to their own community were far more important to these young people. 

The growth of trust and membership of Non-Government Organizations such as Greenpeace 

(Giddens, 2002), Amnesty International, Make Poverty History, for example and other singleissue 

organizations and causes often headed by media celebrities are attracting and holding the 

young citizen as is the passionate and heart-on-the-sleeve documentary movement spearheaded 

by filmmakers like Michael Moore for instance. 

In each case, there is no doubt about, what these organizations and individuals are 

pursuing and they make no attempt at communicating in the neutral, objective, detached ideals 

of enlightenment inspired journalism. In this realm information is not obfuscated, belief is 

motivated in a cause much greater than the individual and there is a profound and increasingly 

realized belief that each individual can make a difference through their collective action. 

In this regard, it could be argued that the democratic process is functioning in these 

larger global issues of climate change and concerns about world poverty and other immediate 

local issues which is laudable. 

Clearly, if the democratic process is be enhanced in the knowledge society in relation to 

the national political condition we need to create the conditions or environment where young 

citizens are g en the opportunity to play an active part in their society- to be actively engaged and 

not disillusioned or cynical. 

The Future Prospects for Media Education 

What are the prospects for media education in the knowledge society? 

Perhaps it is more 

rewarding to put the question a different way and ask do we need to educate our citizens about 

129




the media so that they may function as independent autonomous individuals in the new 

knowledge society and how might this be achieved? 

While an affirmative response is justified on evidence based on many aspects of the new 

knowledge society two factors are presented here as evidence alone to justify citizens and 

especially young citizens being given the opportunity to study the impact of the media in their 

lives and in the society in which they will live. 

Firstly, the knowledge society is dramatically moving mature economies away from the 

Fordist model of production management and organization to the so-called era of the “creative 

economy model of production.” Flew states “a knowledge economy has been identified as a 

global trend associated with the growing importance of ideas and intangibles to economic 

performance, and the implications that increased complexity and uncertainty can have for 

businesses, workers and policy-makers.” (Flew 2005, p. 225) 

Underpinning the knowledge economy is the new media communication industry and 

the digital revolution in which it has already been recognised (among other factors) that “there is 

a growing awareness that the most valuable forms of knowledge are often tacit and embodied in 

people and in communities of practice…. (in) places characterised by diversity, innovation, risk, 

and openness to dissent and difference.”(Flew 2005, p.226) 

A society keen to enrich itself and its citizens with the individual and personal skills and 

attributes to contribute to the knowledge society as a producer, worker or customer or perhaps 

more importantly, to comprehend its broader influence on social life in the postmodern society 

would do well to provide its students with the means to both contribute to and understand this 

radical change and the implications it will have on their working career and life journey. 

Secondly, as considered earlier in this paper the fragmentation of the nature of politics 

and its representation in the news media extends beyond the old conservative 

public/information paradigm e.g. rational debate about national and international issues. It now 

includes and foregrounds the private sphere and entertainment and its attendant rhetorical 

discourses as an component of the news and public information–an element that does not fit well 

in the traditional models by which the media and the democratic process are usually examined. 

The media are dually implicated in both of these factors of major social change and 

restructuring. Firstly, the digital communications revolution is the technological change-agent 

driving the knowledge society and globalisation. 

Secondly, while the media is the dominant avenue by which ideas become available to 

the public sphere and pass into the broader political discourse of any democratic society, it also 

130




remains the force which allows even actively encourages market and audience fragmentation in 

relation to news media products as it seeks new revenue opportunities by creating new markets, 

products and services. In this way, the media have fragmented the assumed common voice 

which national political news was assumed to represent. 

Therefore, without rehearsing here the obvious limitations and reservations about 

Habermas’s concept of the public sphere as a “site where social meanings are generated, 

circulated and reconstituted and as the primary arena for the making of hegemony and 

promotion of cultural common sense and where the media facilitate this process by providing an 

arena of public debate. (Brereton, 2001, p144) It is intended to extend that notion to what Craig 

calls “public life.” This is a much broader conceptualisation of “the public domain which is 

motivated by the belief that we cannot, nor should we, circumscribe boundaries for a public 

sphere where particular kinds of political and civic activities occur.” (Craig 2004, pp. 34-5) 

Craig sees “public life” as incorporating a multiplicity of public domains with porous 

boundaries between then and incorporates an understanding that public life is more 

heterogeneous than expressions of unity and we must allow for the legitimacy of the desires, 

emotions and other less rational communication for a more fully realized understanding of 

public dialogue. 

It is this notion of public life where education about the media contextualised against its 

inexorable engagement with forces such as globalisation and democracy and descriptions like 

tabliodisation and exploitation that is considered essential for citizens to be effectively prepared 

for their future life in any postmodern society. 

So Who Should Be Media Educated and by Whom? 

Some Suggestions, Opportunities and Prospects for Change 

1. Formal Media Education as Part of the School System 

At this point it is pertinent to remember that in 1982 a International Symposium on Media 

Education at Grunwald in Germany a UNESCO Declaration on Media Education was published 

which unequivocally called for an extensive programme of media education in all countries. 

(Masterman1985, p. 340) 

This visionary document has provided a crucial international imprimatur and supported 

many innovative media education programs in numerous countries in the 24 years since 

publication. However, the media world of the present-day is almost unrecognisable to media 

131




world of 24 years ago and even though substantial progress has been achieved, the need to 

support that declaration is even greater now given the ubiquitous nature of the communication 

and media industry. 

If media education in the knowledge society is to be part of the cultural entitlement of 

our children as part of the democratic project then the first and most obvious strategy is that it 

should be a component of the primary and high school curriculum directed toward building the 

human capacity of students to fully participant in the public life of their community. 

The experience of media education’s progress over the last half century in Australia 

would suggest that is it only when the education authorities of the government and particularly 

the ministry of education become involved in this process that the prospects for media education 

really advance. 

In order for this to occur the same basic issues outlined in the 1982 Declaration still need 

to be fully consolidated. These include the development of modern professionally designed 

media curriculum which is sequenced in difficulty and which is based on sustainable researched 

based ideas and concepts about the media. The emphasis here is placed on professional research 

and professional curriculum design and assessment procedures as these courses must stand on 

their pedagogical integrity and intellectual foundation with other much older disciplines where 

these particular concerns regarding academic worth are not questioned. 

Implementation of media education also requires professional university-based teacher 

training. In addition to these factors it is important that student centred resources and 

publications be made available to engage and challenge students with these complex ideas at a 

level commensurate to their age and intellectual development and in a fashion appropriate to 

their culture. A further feature of this process is the development of a professional media 

teacher association which would act a lobby group and focus for in-service training and other 

professional enhancement. The Australian Teachers of Media organization (ATOM) and their 

journal Metro provide an outstanding example of such an organization. 

Initially, at the time of the 1982 Declaration the aim was to get media education on the 

education agenda and that has succeeded to different degrees around the world. Now the task is 

to refine and improve the quality of media education and to share in a more dynamic way, via 

the new technology, the advances that are made in teaching and research related to media 

education. The prospects for this are enhanced by the new technology where, for example, 

existing media education websites could be linked to each other and perhaps a central body of 

132




resources, articles and classroom approaches archived for teachers internationally to access and 

adapt to their own immediate cultural settings. 

2. Opportunities for Media Education for All Citizens of the Community 

Making Better Use of Public Broadcasting Systems 

Where public broadcasting systems are established as statutory corporation with their own 

charter and at arms length to government they often offer the best range of news, opinion and 

background journalism on a variety domestic and international news and political issues. 

This capacity has dramatically enhanced in recent years by the convergence created by the new 

technologies which allows the traditional platforms of radio, television and on-line journalism to 

continue to serve their audience but to also converge on computer screens as a delivery system 

and archive for all three mediums thereby extending choice for both citizens and consumers. This 

has advanced even further with the availability of podcasts, video on demand, video delivery to 

mobile phones and program transcripts with more innovations to be introduced in the future. 

This service is also available from commercial providers and forms a valuable resource where 

appropriate, but to this date the range and quality of resources available from the Australian 

Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service in Australia, for example, is far 

superior to that available from its commercial competitors. 

Curran states “Ironically successful public broadcasting systems come closest to the 

embodying the liberal ideal of informed, rational and inclusive public debate. 

They give priority to public affairs programmes, reasoned discussion and (in some 

systems) pluralistic representation. This is because they put the needs of democracy before those 

of profit, and are supported in this by public law and regulation.”(Curran 2002, p. 227) 

It is also clear that in times of national interest and emergency audiences turn to their 

public broadcasters as a reliable source of factual information. Turner cites an example from the 

USA where National Public Radio has experienced audience growth of 64% over the last 5 years 

attesting to fact that people want quality information in the current international context. 

However, it is not just the formal language of public debate which is given preference in 

all public broadcasting situations. In the case of the ABC Youth radio, station Triple JJJ in 

Australian the political discourse is anything but formal. At times accused of being irreverent, 

outrageous and obscene the station has now for over 30 years discussed politics and public 

events in the language of their audience and all that that implies in terms of taste and sub- 

133




cultural language fashions. This is an important element of public life which must be considered 

in terms of political dialogue and consensus building which would be excluded if a more rigid 

notion of public sphere was embraced. 

New Technology Based Business Models of Interactive-Audience Media 

Historically, the media has sought various levels of audience input and claimed it as a part of its 

democratising agency. Letters to the editor, talkback radio, community radio and television and 

even Hollywoods audience previews for films with alternative ending have all been claimed as 

examples of audience input into media production. 

“Current TV” is the business idea of former US Vice President Al Gore and is already in 

30 million American homes on cable and rapidly expanding with other competitors already 

appearing such as “U Tube.” 

Its great advantage is that it allows interactive television by taking away the true barrier 

to audience participation, namely the cost of entry into the industry. The target audience is 18 -34 

year olds those so blatantly rejecting the current network news and current affairs programs 

referred to above. Through a combination of website training, audience production and selection 

of content about one third of content going to air as part of programming is content generated 

and voted by its audience including television advertisements for which program makers may be 

paid up to $50,000 if their commercial is used on other major networks. 

“Current TV’s” Chloe Sladden states “ What could this change for young people in the 

world if suddenly they could harness that power and that platform and use it to talk about 

what’s important to them, and their points of view.” (Tooth 2006) 

Already making money and going global this multimedia platform seems certain to act 

as a prototype for other countries and as a public life space where user generated content will 

become available in professional packaging and broadcast to really present audiences 

perspectives on issues rather than what media intermediaries might assume these perspectives 

are. 

This is potentially a real step toward broader community lifelong education and 

participation in the media as long as provision is made to involve those who fall on the wrong 

side of the digital divide. 

A variety of other avenues present themselves as opportunities for change and 

improving the function of the media in the democratic process of the knowledge society and they 

134




will be briefly listed here though each is of considerable importance but time limits the capacity 

to discuss them all in detail. 

The media, especially the commercial media, needs to lobbied by audiences and other 

informed critics to re-evaluate their representation of the youth of the community. It is difficult to 

attract young members of the community to news programming if your “position” on youth is to 

treat them as a problem. 

Again the media, especially television, needs to be advised by it’s audiences that the 

textual strategies and formats currently used by for news and current affairs are in need of 

revision and creating a barrier to audience engagement and knowledge dissemination. The 

current practices have changed very little since the introduction of the medium unlike almost 

every other aspect of television and its audiences. 

The research capacity and support of journalists in mainstream media needs to be 

enhanced and invigorated so that they can investigate stories in more detail over longer periods 

of time. While the task of meeting the current deadline may be important in the new global 

knowledge society it is also important that journalists be given the time to reflect more deeply on 

the stories they pursue through research time and longer more searching reflective articles and 

features. The young of the new knowledge society are the most educated generations in human 

history they deserve better than what is currently offered as public information and only ethically 

aware, well resourced journalists will satisfy that need. 

As the new technology provides new vehicles for the communication process more 

information and points of view will be made available from more divergent sources on more 

complex and diverse subjects as we have seen with the explosion of new knowledge on the web, 

such as bloggs for example, in recent years. One of the great tasks for media education and for 

education generally in the future will concern the student’s capacity to determine which 

knowledge is appropriate knowledge. Which is based on reliable information and data and 

which is questionable and unreliable? 

If we want future citizens to have these skills then each person will have to possess a 

rudimentary knowledge of the procedures and practices of research methodology, argument and 

the ability to assess the quality of evidence used in debates, at level suitable for their age. They 

will also need a clear understanding of some very basic issues concerned with the ethics of 

representation and public commentary. 

If we want our future citizens to be sceptical by nature rather than cynical and distrustful 

and to fully enter into the discourse of political and public life that the knowledge society offers 

135




as part of the democratic project then these are the minimum prospects we should hope to realize. 

Media literacy for pleasure, engaged participation, personal and community growth is one of the 

staring points for this lifelong process as the symbolic power of the media is not going to 

decrease in the future nor is the technological revolution which drives it. 

What can we do now as a group to begin to bring about some of these changes? 

References 

BRERETON, P. (2001) The Continuum Guide to Media Education, London, Continuum. 

BUCKINGHAM, D. (2000) The Making of Citizens: Young People, News and Politics, London, 

Routledge. 

CRAIG, G. (2004) The Media,Politics and Public Life, Crows Nest, Allen and Unwin. 

CURRAN, J. (2002) Media and Power, London, Routledge. 

FLEW, T. (2005) New Media: An Introduction, Melboorne, Oxford University Press. 

GIDDENS, A. (2002) Media and Globalisation. International Association for Media and 

Communications Research. Barcelona, Reproduced on ABC Radio National Media Report 

September 

MASTERMAN, L. (1985) Teaching the Media, London, Comedia. 

MINDICH, D. T. Z. (2005) Tuned Out: Why American under 40 Don't Follow the News, New York, 

Oxford University Press. 

SILVERSTONE, R. (1999) Why Study the Media?, London, Sage Publications. 

TOOTH, G. (2006) Current TV. ABC Radio National, The Media Report August. Australia. 

TURNER, G. (2005) Ending the affair: the decline of television current affairs in Australia, Sydney, 

University of New South Wales Press. 

136

Discussion Paper on ‘ The Present Situation of Media Education and 

the Prospects for Global Media Education’ 

Discussion Paper on ‘The Present Situation of Media Education and 


Discussant: Dr. Kim, Min-Soo, Sogang University 

First of all, I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss with Dr. John Benson. As a 

matter of fact, I’m very impressed by his article because it presents how media education must 

be practiced in knowledge society. 

I recognize that Dr. Benson has emphasized three main points. The first point is the current 

situation of media education. The second is the relationship between media education and the 

knowledge society. And the third point is the future prospects and some related suggestions for 

media education. 

As Dr. Benson mentioned, the formal traditional school-based model of media education has 

been dominant from its early time up to now in Western societies including U.K and Australia. 

Of course, the vision of the early media education has tended to follow a protection model to 

inoculate young audiences from the harmful influence of the media. However, media education 

has evolved into diverse approaches, that is, the critical viewer approach, a textual approach 

based largely on film theory and semiology, and the production of Community Media. 

At this point, I’d like to point out that there is a big difference in the evolution of media 

education between industrialized Western countries and Asian countries, especially Korea. 

Most Western societies have moved from a formal school-based model of media education into 

a community-based model of media education. On the contrary, some of Asian countries are 

vice versa. In case of Korea, media education has emerged from social movements like a pattern 

of audience movements to criticize the institutional press in the process of democratization. 

That is why current Korean media education organizations are dominant by civil groups even 

up to now. Nevertheless, Korean media education is going to be settled down as the formal 

media education in the school system. 

I’m very interested in Dr. Benson’s analysis of young generation’s attitude on mainstream 

media institutions and political parties. I agree with his opinion that today’s young people are 

not uninterested in political and media issues. They obtain their necessary political and media 

137



information in a different way rather than in a traditional way, in the digitalized and globalized 

knowledge society. For instance, in our country, youth power armed by the internet 

characterized by interactivity, openness, and immediateness had vastly influenced to the 2002 

presidential election. Moreover, it is told from a recent survey that most of the Korean young 

people get largely daily news from Internet potal sites rather than existing media institutions. 

So, according to Dr. Benson, I think media education should be carried out so that young people 

can keep up with a knowledge society and actively participate in public life with diverse 

political and media issues. 

Dr. Benson provides some suggestions for the future of media education. One of them is to 

make formal media education to be part of the school system. He reminds a condition that it is 

only when the education authorities of the government and particularly the ministry of 

education become involved in this process that the prospects for media education really 

advance. That is very logical and rational. But there are obstacles about its realization. In case of 

Korea, the ministry of education makes an effort in putting formal media education into part of 

the school system, but the ministry of education faces some difficulties to do it now. One of the 

largest difficulties is an oppressive university entrance exam system. Due to such a terrible 

system, most schools are not willing to receiving media education as a regular curriculum for 

young students. Because of this reason, the education authorities of the government now face 

with difficulties in making formal media education as part of the school system. 

According to Dr. Benson, another suggestion for the future of media education is very practical 

in the way that current media education directs toward giving opportunities for media 

education for all citizens of the community. As he introduced, public broadcasting systems like 

“Current TV” prefer to public affairs programs and induce audience participation with 

interactive systems. 

In case of Korea, there are “Open Channel” program by offered the Korean Broadcasting 

System(KBS) and “R-TV” as a satellite channel. “Open Channel” is a 25 minutes program once a 

week run by KBS1TV as the public service broadcasting of Korea. As a program for audience 

participation, it is produced in a pattern of ducumentary by audiences or civil groups. 

Another use of public broadcasting system is “R-TV”, which is Korea’s first public access 

television channel. It deals with diverse themes, such as the environment, world poverty, and 

local issues, which are frequently alinated from mainstream media institutions. 

138



Up to now, we have looked at Dr. Benson’s article about media education and democracy in 

Knowledge society. As for me, the most impressive one among his argumentations is as 

follows: One of the great tasks for media education and for education generally in the future 

will concern the student’s capacity to determine which knowledge is appropriate knowledge. 

However, I’d like to tell him carefully that media education must be diversified by global, 

natioanl or local culture. Various forms of media education interact with other social 

institutions and reflect the social, political and cultural contexts from which they emerge. We 

cannot talk about media education per se, but about media educations, especially in knowledge 

society. 

So, that’s all I have to say. Thank you! 

139

인터넷과 미디어 교육 

Internet & Media Education 


KIM, KITAI 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Communication, Honam University 

1. Introduction : The Power of Internet and Human Beings as Internet Users 

This study has been prepared to suggest educational alternatives for the well-advised use of 

internet. In comparison with the ever-growing influence of internet, users' habits of using 

internet and their attitudes toward the internet fall short of our expectations. This is the issue of 

great concern. 

People meet the world with various images. 

They not only meet simply, but also exist in the world full of different images. In other words, 

people ascertain their meaning of existence and find their direction to move forward, by 

meeting and conversing with the world. 

A new medium called "internet" keeps a rein on the meeting between people. This means that 

the internet becomes all the more dominant life around people. No doubt we're entering "the 

Internet Era" in which we think and hear through the internet. We call people, who get along in 

such an internet era, the internet generation. The internet generation as well as people who live 

in the internet era live together with a new medium, the so-called internet. They not only live 

together as it is but also most part of their life depends on the internet. Some critics argue that 

people are not making use of their internet but they are being controlled and manipulated by 

the internet, on the contrary. 

2. The Necessity of Internet Media Education 

Considering the ever-increasing influence of the internet, the well-advised education that can 

make the intelligent use of internet possible leaves much to be desired. A variety of adverse 

effects have been emerging as internet users fail to abide by their established rule which needs 

to be properly kept in the internet, namely the cyber space. In other words, we lack 

"Netiquette," namely the public awareness of the cyber space. It has been pointed that the 

140



cultural awareness about the correct use of the internet correctly is insufficient, compared to the 

great technological power of internet. 

As the number of internet users lacking moral awareness increase in the space of anonymity, 

the internet will without doubt become a garbage can full of verbal abuses, slanders and 

groundless rumors. The measures to root out harmful contents defaming another's reputation 

and invading another's privacy, irrespective of individual or group, are needed to be taken 

urgently. There are some cases that go far from the level appealing to public consciousness and 

moral awareness to the serious level equivalent to a crime. In such a case, a system that can 

immediately punish such an offender through scientific investigation must be established. Then, 

the safety in the internet space can be secured. 

The cyber world created by the internet exists logically but it is an virtual world that does not 

exist in reality. It is such a concept that seems to have something to do with the world of 'dream' 

or 'fantasy.' However, the major difference between cyber world and dream is that the dream 

is a world where we drop in for some time while we're unconscious but the cyber world is a 

real space where we can usually come in and go out actually. 

That's why the cyber world features the strong reciprocity with the reality in that it exists close 

to the reality. It is more likely that someone who have both an experience and memory in the 

cyber world will lead his life cherishing them as they exist even in the real world. The 

knowledge and experience obtained in the cyber world occupy a highly important position in 

the eye view of children and juveniles in particular. They make friends through chatting, do 

their homework using the internet and are addicted to internet gaming. These are exactly our 

children's present feature. It is noteworthy that an increasing number of children and juveniles 

gain access to obscene sites and even commit internet-related crimes, albeit not many. 

Of course, around us, there are many intelligent people who use the internet effectively 

according to their needs. An increasing number of positive users freely navigate the internet 

referred to as "the sea of information" to search for information and entertainment essential to 

them. 

Our society have devoted all our energies to a daunting task of rapidly spreading the 

information and telecommunication media represented by such a new technology as internet 

and have been tied up by the technical education to use them. We've been less interested in the 

message itself contained in them. In view of the technical education, we tended to exceedingly 

underestimate the cultural education prerequisite for mature and refined use of internet. 

Accordingly, the education that will make internet users understand media correctly and use 

them intelligently must be applied to internet media as well. The internet media policy which 

has been mainly focused on selling, supplying and spreading internet all the while must be 

141



transformed into a different dimension that will foster a healthy internet culture. In other words, 

the media education must be provided in parallel with technical education from the early stage 

of internet education. The most basic reason is that internet media education is a prerequisite 

for the cultivation of beautiful and enjoyable cyber space. 

The future of internet will ultimately depend on whether internet users, the so-called netizen, 

possess and live up to the high standard internet culture or not. It is noteworthy that, in the 

future, the possession of highly refined internet culture rather than simplistic technical 

superiority will be a key factor for being a truly qualified country with superpower in the 

internet without doubt. 

3. Key Domains of the Internet Media Education 

Internet media showing rapid expansion are various as far as scopes and types are concerned: 

internet, internet newspaper, internet broadcasting, internet magazine, internet book, internet 

advertisement, internet movie, internet radio and others including homepage, blog, cafe, 

community, bulletin board, email and more. All sorts of information, cultural patterns and 

public opinions induced by the internet media are likewise diversified. Accordingly, it is very 

important for us to understand the media called the internet, improve its technical capabilities 

and nurture our ability applicable to real life as well. 

In this regard, the important factors of the internet media education need to include both 

educational goal and contents essential to the internet era. Scholars have a variety of opinions 

regarding the question of what should be included in the key domains of internet media 

education. 

Information Literacy Competency Standards for the Students quoted from the American 

Library Association and the Association for Educational Communication&Technology are as 

follows: 1 The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and 

efficiently 2 The information literate student searches the internet for needed information by 

himself from his own point of view 3 The information literate student evaluates information 

critically 4 The information literate student uses information creatively to accomplish a 

specific goal 5 The information literate student shares information 6 The information 

literate student uses information ethically and legally in an information-oriented society 7 

The information literate student leads an active life through social interaction with others. 

Prof. Back Wook In(Back, 2001) summarized the key domains constituting the digital media 

literacy education in three factors as follows: 1 technical capability to gain access to the 

142



internet 2 capability to utilize internet contents 3 capability to organize community and 

share the knowledge-based information. 

Lee Sang Soo(Lee, 2004) cited the following four domains as the key factors for internet media 

education: 1 capability to interpret internet media 2 capability to think critically 3 

capability to use internet media creatively 4 well-rounded education. 

Song Min Jeong(Song, 1999) cited the following four domains as the key factors for internet 

media education: 1 capability to interpret internet information 2 capability to search 

information 3 capability to use information 4 capability to evaluate information. 

Sung Dong Kyu, La Do Sam(Sung & La, 2000) cited the following three domains as the key 

factors for success in the knowledge-based information society: 1 capability to communicate 

2 capability to adapt to specialization and globalization 3 capability to commercialize. 

Kim Yang Eun(Kim, 2002) cited the following four domains as the key factors to be included in 

the media education: 1 technological capability 2 cultural capability 3 social capability 4 

reflective capability. 

In spite of numerous discussions, the education related to the internet has been focused mainly 

on the acquisition of information technology and computer search all this while. The internet 

education in its early years had been provided to internet users with an emphasis on technical 

education required for internet use. Nevertheless, information and telecommunication ethics 

education emphasizing value and attitude has not been introduced until side effects including 

cyber crime, addition to internet and circulation of unwholesome information appeared. 

However, the changes created by the internet is just the beginning and nobody knows what the 

future changes will be. It is impossible to predict the flow itself in the digital world where nonlinear 

information flows and the flow is interrupted. Hence, the changing society 

demands new capability and change commensurate with it. 

4. Urgent Problems to Revitalize the Internet Media Education 

1) Establishing Internet Media Education Center (tentatively named) 

Currently, the internet media education has been provided sporadically by several central 

ministries including the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Ministry of Information and 

Communication, the Korean Broadcasting Commission and the Ministry of Education and 

Human Development along with all sorts of Civil Society Organizations and Public Institutions. 

The establishment of an education support center that can provide comprehensive support for 

the educational programs and projects related to internet media is urgently needed. 

143



This will be a useful solution to help us achieve the desired effect by fulfilling the projects 

efficiently and prevent the squandering of resources. 

This center to serve as an comprehensive support center for internet media education in Korea, 

must be ready for the execution of the mid- and short-term projects as follows: 

(1) It must serve as an comprehensive research center which will increase right 

understanding of new media environment. 

(2) It must engage in practical research activities to propose effective alternative for 

internet media education based on correct understanding of teenagers. 

(3) It must carry out field studies, research activities and concrete action programs to 

understand and improve educational environment confronting Korean teenagers. 

(4) It must make every effort to develop an alternative media education in perfect 

harmony with our situation through analysis and understanding of the overseas 

internet media education trend. 

(5) It must correctly evaluate all sorts of internet media education which are now under 

way. On the basis of this evaluation, it must play an active role as an integrating and 

mediating organization. 

(6) The internet media education, ultimately, must be implemented at home. So it must 

develop its action program on internet media education so that the media education at 

home can be vitalized. 

(7) It must develop educational materials classified by steps and levels after due 

consideration of educational factors such as education recipients and educational 

goals. 

(8) In addition to the efforts to understand a newly emerging media environment, training 

professional instructors to make them specialized in internet media education should 

be performed. 

2) Designating Internet Media Education as a Regular Subject 

An urgent problem waiting solution is to designate the internet media education as a regular 

subject in school to promote educational continuance and systemisity. It may be hard to 

designate the internet media education as an independent regular subject for the time being, 

considering the reality of education in Korea. However, it will be necessary to make every effort 

to find a solution to this matter with due consideration of current circumstances. 

It is necessary for us to proceed with a plan to designate internet media education as a regular 

subject making feasible attempts through constant consultations with the related government 

ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Education and Human Development. 

144



Now, it's time to take active measures to revitalize the efforts to designate internet media 

education as extra-curricular activity subject, after-school subject, or integrated subject which 

are now partly being under way. 

3) Expanding Recipient's Age Range and Educational Institutes for Internet Media Education 

Kindergarten pupils using the internet are rapidly increasing as the age of internet users is in 

its apparent downward trend. Hence, the expansion of age range in the internet media 

education is urgently needed. 

In addition, the education needs to target kindergarten teachers and parents who have 

preschool-aged children is required so that preschool children can have proper 

education. 

4) Introducing a Training System For Making Instructors Specialized In Internet Media 

Education 

We need to take measures to systemize instructor training system especially for internet media 

education which are currently classified according to teacher, parents and leaders of social 

organizations. With well-organized training system, qualified instructors can be produced.. 

That is because qualified instructors can provide qualified education. 

5) Developing Tailored Learning Materials for Internet Media Education 

Currently, we're facing hard truth that internet media education is for the most part dependent 

on makeshift learning materials which include a type of compiled learning material or a type of 

workbook because internet ethics education is being sporadically provided by individual 

organizations. In consideration of stern realities, we need to systemetically develop and print 

learning materials available to school, the places of civil and society education, and home 

respectively. 

In addition, one of urgent problems is to develop learning materials which are classified by 

beginner, intermediate and high level and are readily available to internet ethics education in 

school. 

6) Supporting Research Activities Related To Internet Media Education 

Measures to vitalize specialized research must be taken so that the concept of internet media 

education can be clearly defined and, on the basis of this definition, related research can be 

constantly carried out. 

Activities to support the publication of scientific journal and the open invitation to related 

researches must be carried out on a constant basis. Then, in parallel with these activities, actions 

145



to revitalize academic circles and societies, offer a class at the related department of University 

and establish the related major field at a graduate school must be carried out. . 

7) Offering a Venue For Case Studies On Internet Media Education On A Regular Basis 

It is necessary to actively support the existing venues for the presentation of success stories 

regarding media education, including the National Conference on Media Education(the 19th 

Conference, dated December, 2005) which is held annually. It is desirable to utilize these 

meetings as the place of interaction where whole cases of internet media education 

accomplished throughout the year are presented and discussed comprehensively. 

In addition, it is also necessary to prepare the venue for regular presentation of cases on either 

monthly or quarterly basis, giving an opportunity to exchange each other's field experiences. 

8) Supporting Teachers and School Activities For Internet Media Education 

It is necessary to take measures supporting subjects or programs more systemically in that they 

have close relation with internet media education, which is currently being under way in school. 

It is also important to develop and carry out comprehensive measures to support facilities, 

learning materials, or programs essential to school after careful analysis of current educational 

circumstances. 

9) Building Networks between Organizations Offering Internet Media Education 

It is necessary to develop and carry out measures to build networks connecting organizations 

and institutions that are currently offering internet media education. 

Through regular meetings, developing effective ways to exchange and solve problems 

occurring in different fields is extremely important for the vitalization of internet media 

education. 

10) Supporting Instructors and Activities For Internet Media Education In Civil Society 

Organizations 

It is necessary to review the ongoing support projects aimed at internet media education 

offered by all sorts of social organizations and make the projects much more systematic and 

efficient. 

Decision on whether to suspend, continue, or expand the project will be made based on the 

evaluation of the performances provided by organizations and institutions participating in the 

related projects. As a result, the efficiency of support project will be greatly increased. 

146



11) Publishing “Internet Media Education White Paper"(tentatively named) On A Regular Basis 

To accumulate various data including people's media access is more urgently needed than 

anything else. It is necessary to publish a yearly white paper containing comprehensive 

information on the actual conditions of people's internet access and their culture. 

Accumulation of comprehensive information on internet use can be a critical factor in judging 

successful performance of the related projects. 

12) Introducing and Presenting “Internet Media Education Award" 

It is necessary to establish a system to encourage and honor instructors engaging in the field of 

internet media education, eventually taking this opportunity to further expand related 

programs. 

We are sure that it will call our society's attention to the fact that engagement in internet media 

education will be very meaningful and fruitful without doubt. 

13) Honoring Distinguished Contents (for TV or Internet) 

It is necessary to consider measures to select and honor excellent programs as well as fund 

their production. That will give an encouraging effect to the development of wholesome media 

products and internet contents. 

Social awareness of internet media education should be increased by opening it to the general 

public as a festive form every year. Furthermore, this will give people having connection with 

the related activities the sense of pride and also will give both exhibitors and participants an 

opportunity to win recognition from the public. 

REFERENCES 

Kim, Kitai (2005), Study on the Actual Conditions of Cyber Ethics Education and Policy Direction, 

National Youth Commission 

Kim, Kitai (2006), How Can We Teach Our Children Internet? (Seoul : CommunicationBooks) 

Kim, Yangeun (2002), “Study on Media Education According to the Changing Media 

Environment” Doctoral Dissertation, Chung-Ang University 

Back, Ukin (2001), “Knowledge and Education for In The Digital Era”, Understanding of Cyber 

Education, Korean Educational Development Institute 

Sung, Donggyu and Ra, Dosam (2000), Internet & Communication, (Seoul : Hanwool Academy) 

147



Song, Minjung (1999), “Direction of Information-Oriented Education for the Youth ", 

published in the Spring Congress, the Korean Association for Broadcasting & 

Telecommunication Studies 

Lee, Sangsoo (2004), “Core Domain of Internet Media Education and Teaching Methods” 

quoted from the seminar commemorating the opening of the Media Center, 

Chonnam University 

148

디지털 시대의 민주주의와 미디어 교육 

Citizen, Media, Democracy: Freedom of Expression in Digital Age 

Citizen, Media, Democracy: 

Freedom of Expression in Digital Age 

Malee Boonsiripunth 

Associate Professor 

Thammasat University, Thailand 

Introduction 

In democratic society, media play crucial role in mobilizing and promoting citizen 

participation by freely circulated information and communication to enable active 

involvement in the process of political democratization. The media, as channels of 

information and communication must be free to serve its function as a market place of ideas 

from all sources. Therefore the concepts of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, 

freedom of the press are widely exercised to preserve human rights, the rights to access to 

information, the rights to express/exchange opinions, etc. The main functions of media are 

responsible to provide, promote and motivate public participation atmosphere in certain 

democratic societies. 

If the media in so called ‘democracy system’ does not protect and retain their rights 

and freedom of expression or their freedom has been threaten or restricted, it is obvious that 

the rights and the freedom of the people are in danger as well. In such case, the people are 

more likely turn to other forms of information/communication in which their voices can be 

heard. It is obvious that the emergence of new digital technology does open opportunity to 

those who seek for choices of information/communication channel that influentially boost ups 

their voices and opinions to the world. The power of Internet is increasingly prominent when 

the citizens who hardly find their place in most mainstream media. However, does the 

Internet really provide equal access information opportunity and freely communicate their 

opinions. Specially, in developing nations where the gap of socio-economics and education 

standards still exist. In such circumstances, the citizen media would be most appropriated 

only if the citizens are well literate with adequate knowledge of democratization and media 

education to gain full public participation. 

149



This paper is attempted to discuss the situation of media democratization in Thailand 

focusing on political and media democratization in term of people’s right of information and 

freedom of expression. It could also examine the role of the press in practicing their 

professionalism and the role of citizen media in certain aspects. A brief political background 

is given to provide some understanding of media situation in Thai society. 

Some Political Background 

Historically, Thailand had long been ruled under the monarchical political system until the 

1932 political revolution, the country led to a royal kingdom possessing parliamentary 

democracy where freedom of the people and the press is guaranteed by the Constitution. Thai 

people then so hear about ‘political rights’ and ‘freedom’ as believe in the so called 

‘democracy system’ where the press play vital role in promoting free press and people’s right 

to be informed. But in exercising their rights and freedom, the press in Thailand faced the 

dilemma of inadequate professional practice and restriction of freedom of expression by 

political power. 

Since establishment of the first Constitution, several political incidents affected the 

relationship of the press and governments in power who attempted to control freedom of the 

press. It is however interesting to say that; 

… press freedom in Thailand is largely enjoyed only by the print media, whereas 

radio and television are still subject to strict government controls, both directly and 

indirectly. … The print media enjoys for greater freedom is best explained by the fact that 

all the leading newspapers are privately owned and thrive on Thailand’s traditional spirit 

of free enterprise. There are at present about a dozen national dailies with a combine’s 

circulation of approximately two million. 1 

Perhaps a profile of the country should also be outlined here to give some pictures about Thai 

society. Thailand is a homogeneous society with one official language, Thai. Thai people have 

strong belief in Buddhism as well as strong cultural and traditional values in which family 

relations are closed-knit and warm. Hierarchy is a strong cultural and psychological value that 

so significant to Thai way of life. The population size is approximately 64 millions whereby 

more than 10 of which are crowded in the Bangkok metropolitan. 

1 Sricharatchanya, Paisal. “The Thailand Perspective,” in Asad Latif,(ed). Walking the Tightrope: 

Press freedom and Professional Standard in Asia. (Singapore: Asian Media Information & 

Communication Centre, 1998), pp. 183-184. 

150



Regarding to its media system, some observers indicate that Thai press obtains more 

freedom when comparing to those exercising in its neighboring countries. This might be due 

to more or less influenced by its non-colonial experience. 2 

The concept of press freedom in 

fact imported by an American missionary who initiated the first newspaper in Thailand 

during the absolute monarchy period. So, the ideologies of free expression as symbolizes the 

practice of ‘democracy’ is therefore considerably foreign to the Thais and take sometimes to 

comprehend, apply, and adopt appropriately. 

Freedom of the Thai press highly flourished in the era of King Rama VI because His 

Majesty’s personal interest and journalistic talent that helped promoting the rise of press 

freedom. So it was marked as “The Golden Age of Thai Press Freedom.” Despite the 

development of press freedom in a reasonable democratic ground, a sign of the first press 

control was noticeable by the first Publications and Newspapers law to implicitly warn those 

who aggressively presented their opinions. However, there was never been enforced. 

The press situation had become worse after a revolution by the People’s Party in 1932. 

The country then ruled by constitutional monarchy since. Freedom of the press was then 

affected when the military officers won the battle. Many newspapers decided to tone down 

their criticism. A large number of opposition newspapers were deliberately eliminated or 

punished or suppressed on vague grounds of legal justification. 3 

The press freedom was in 

downturn and worked cautiously only to keep the business survived. Level of press controls 

has been shifted back and forth between almost complete freedom and virtually absolute 

repression, depending on the attitude of leaders in power at any given period .4 

The still exist law, the Publishing Act B.E. 2484 (1941) has been criticized as the 

strictest law for press freedom. The law gives full censorship power of the press to the 

Minister of Interior decision. It’s said that this law reflected the ruler’s negative attitude about 

the practicing press. 5 Several attempts had been done to abolish such law and worked out a 

new draft to replace the Publication Act in which the concept of Press Council was raised up 

2 Suphadiloke, Boonlert. “Role of Communication in Socio-Cultural Development”, A Report 

presented to ASEAN Regional Seminar on the Role of Communication in Socio-Cultural 

Development (Bangkok Thailand. July 25-29, 1983). 

3 Boonsa-ad, Supapun. History of the Newspapers in Thailand, 1974, cited by Boonluk 

Boonyaketmala, in John Lent (ed.) Newspapers in Asia: Contemporary Trends and Problems, 

(Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia,1982), p.339. 

4 Mitchell, John D. in John Lent, ed. The Asian Newspapes’ Reluctant Revolution, (Ames: The 

Iowa State University Press, 1971), p. 216. 

5 Ibid., p. 217. 

151



under a principle of self-control/regulation. 6 However, the Publishing Act is still functioning 

although it is criticized as most obsolete law for today society. 

There were several following laws that cause enormous tension to press freedom, 

such as the Announcement No.17, Announcement No.42 (Decree 42) until all professional 

associations of Journalists successfully fought to abolish in 1990. 

Under military government if the media report and criticism was not at the stage of 

satisfaction, the media were gradually controlled either by violent forces or financial 

mechanisms. The media controlling methods became complicated as ‘purchasing’, 

‘threatening’ and ‘killing’. 7 The situation obviously restricted the full right of expression and 

freedom of the press to perform their professional function. 

It is interesting to mention here that the distorted media reports of the May protest in 

1997 had forced many people either turn to alternatives channel of information or joined the 

scene. This was mainly due to the mistrust of government owned media (radio and 

television), while receiving contrary reports from newspapers and other special channels 

(mobile phones, faxes and videos). This could prove that alternative/personal media would 

play significant role when ordinary sources of information/communication are prohibited 

and/or suppressed. Thai citizen media therefore, first played role since the event of May 1997. 

Due to the press misbehave in functioning as responsible watchdog, the press was 

largely questioned by the society. The public demand for a ‘media reform’ and proposed to 

put a clause stipulating the establishment of an “independent agency to monitor and regulate 

the press” in the 1997 Constitution draft. 8 The Press Council of Thailand was, eventually, set 

up on July 4, 1997 primarily to assure the public of self-control among professional 

practitioners and to protect freedom of expression. 

Media under Capitalist Government 

The media industry becomes more commercial-oriented in capitalist system. The dependency 

on business profit as an indicator of organization success that exercise in most democratic 

societies turns to be more or less constrained the good practice of professional journalists. The 

notion was apparent during the days of Prime Minster Taksin Chinnawatra who is keen of 

using market mechanism to interfere the exercise of freedom of expression on political 

6 Ibid., pp. 136-137. 

7 “516 Rambuttree” in Manager Daily Newspaper, (May 27, 1992). 

8 Sooksomchitra, Manich. “The ‘Social’ Method” in Cecile C. A. Balgos (ed.) Watching the 

Watchdog: Media Self-Regulation in Southeast Asia, (Bangkok: Southeast Asia Press Alliance, 

2002), p. 74. 

152



coverage. The market mechanism was used as a means to manipulate the press in the favor of 

government achievement. 

Yet, the controlling of press freedom has shift from the strict law enforcement or use 

of political power to the application of various market and commercial interventions in media 

operation with ingenuity, indiscernible, and unpremeditated. Thus, could it be assumed that 

the business side of democratic media industry is somewhat appeared to be the weakness of 

exercising press freedom in a democratic capitalism system. That is because either media 

owners and/or political capitalist leaders can easily exploit the professional function of the 

media. 

An efficient control mechanism of the media under capitalist government is the 

‘market mechanism’ or ‘money politics’ that can manipulate press criticism in one way or 

another. It seems that the press freedom under capitalist government have to carefully 

maintain the balance between business survival and journalistic accountability. When 

freedom of expression was suppressed, and the media were distrusted, the citizen media then 

play increasing role. 

The democracy ideology, in fact, composes of three equal important components; 

citizen, free media, and government. A successful democratic society must efficiently 

motivate full, free, and equal participation among the three components through various 

channels of information/communication. All citizens must be well equipped with adequate 

knowledge, information, and channels of expression in which the rights to access to 

information and expression are guarantee. The democratic government is therefore must be a 

well trust facilitator and fully responsible for the betterment of its citizen by promoting 

human rights, freedom of expression in order to achieve democracy goal. 

Free media 

Democ 

racy 

Informed 

Citizen 

Democratic 

Government 

Interrelation of the three components 

Freedom of expression: Democracy, Media, and Citizen 

153



The rise of new information/communication technologies is simultaneously prompting new 

channel of expression to ordinary people. It offers wider opportunity for all citizens to 

participate in all social activities as well as political movement. With the availability of 

digital/online technology and accessibility to online information, ordinary citizens can 

activate their participation in the process of democratization. The coming of new technology 

definitely overcomes the limitation of expression pertaining in the regular media. In the cases 

of Thai situation where freedom of the media are, by and large, depending upon political 

instability, the digital/online channel does play significant role as alternative channel of 

information/communication for the Thais. They usually use the technology as source of 

information and channel of expression especially when the mainstream media fail to exercise 

their function properly. The internet gives opportunity for the citizens to strengthen their 

voices and freedom because… 

“In some cases they are watchdogging news and information, organizations and 

reporting stories we got wrong. In other cases, they are reporting the news before journalists 

discover it. And they are also focusing on hyper-local community news that most newspapers 

don't have the resources to cover. So, we must also figure out ways to embrace new ideas, 

such as participatory journalism and citizens journalists, while holding onto old ideals. And I 

don't know how a government could begin to control that. 9 

The emergence of the Internet not only brings wider possibility for ordinary people to 

share and express their ideas/information but also enable them to better serve democracy 

ideology. The Internet is The Internet/digital technology, thus, is valued as a borderless 

media for all citizens, especially blogging. 

Nonetheless, this author is not going to discuss about whether the blog could be 

considered as ‘citizen journalism’ as some scholars worry about. But will look at citizen media 

as communication channel in which the people can freely and easily access to information and 

knowledge, as well as express their opinions and ideas. Citizen media should provide equal 

opportunity to all citizens to be able to participate in democracy system. As previously said 

the considerable first citizen media in Thai society was the mobile phones that enable the 

people to access to information and communicate of what had happened during the May crisis 

in 1992. The digital age provides even greater influence and impacts to social perception, 

movement, and decision making. 

9 “The Role of Newspapers in Building Citizenship,” Keynote by Jan Schaffer, Director of Pew 

Center for Civic Journalism at 5th Brazilian Newspaper Congress, Paulo, Brazil. (September 

13, 2004) 

154



Let’s cite some prominent cases that evident the power of citizen media; 

“On December 11, 1999, the best selling popular newspaper, Thai Rath Daily, 

published a photograph of a naked woman who had been raped and killed in her 

apartment. Almost as soon as that edition hit the streets, the Thai Rath became inundated 

with hundreds of phone calls and email, all of them expressing outrage over the 

publication of the photo. 

The same day that the TCPT was scheduled to meet and discuss the issue, Thai Rath ran 

an editorial that was essentially an apology. It said it had “made a mistake and would like 

to apologize to both readers and the family of the victim with deep regret. Those 

responsible for the decision to print the explicit photo from the crime scene felt remorse 

and were prepared to accept punishment for violating professional ethics.” 10 

It is, in fact, known that the overwhelm negative feedbacks had been pouring to editorial 

office from all directions through emails, phone calls, and large number of complaint were 

rapidly circulated in the internet community. With the strongest pressure, Thai Rath’s 

editorial staff could do nothing but decided to publish an apology editorial to its readers. 

Such case obviously reflects the power of citizen media in all kind of channels. It was realized 

that the result might not be the same if the readers had to rely on mainstream media. The case 

would gradually gone silent since the gatekeeper power in traditional editorial process. 

Therefore, it was the first time that the influential biggest newspaper was forced to 

compromise and tone down outrageous feedback. 

Another interesting case dealing with an entertainment giant company, the GMM 

Media, a subsidiary of entertainment GMM Grammy Plc, attempted to takeover two wellknown 

quality newspaper companies in Thailand, the Matichon Plc and the Bangkok Post Plc. 

Matichon has three newspapers in hand - Matichon Daily, the thrice-weekly Prachachart 

Thurakit, and Khao Sod. It combined circulation exceeds one million copies. While the 

Bangkok Post, best-selling English-language newspaper has Post Today and several 

magazines, which are Thai versions of foreign magazines. 

As soon as the purchasing news was spread out, it attracted a lot of attention from 

Thai people and media. Since the profit-making has long been the principle of GMM Grammy, 

the public afraid that the professional ideology of such newspapers under the entertainment 

company would change totally. Essentially, people think the takeover might be acting on 

behalf of a power group with a political agenda. The most worry was about Thai press 

10 Manich Sooksomchitra, “The ‘Social’ Method,” pp. 73-77 

155



freedom and people’s right to know would be at risk under the management of a strong profit 

making entertainment company. 

Again citizen media play concrete roles against GMM media unusual takeover. 

Numbers of hidden background information about the case essentially the relationship 

between the GMM CEO and the government leader in power had been promptly posted and 

widely forwarded by email, web, e-publications, cell phones, etc. The dispersed information 

did create opposing atmosphere against the GMM takeover. With strong attacking 

movements over channel of citizen media, the GMM Grammy Plc eventually delayed the plan. 

hen the tsunami sudden hit Southern areas of Thailand on December 26, 2004, Most 

people first received the news from email and immediately circulated by forward email, 

website, and bloggers. The citizen then highly involved in the unfortunate disaster and 

plunged into the scene to give voluntarily help and rescued the victims. In term of news 

circulation tsunami case strongly confirm the power of citizen media that highly mobilized 

public participation and successfully drew attentive action from all directions. Without the 

power of digital technology, it might be impossible to provide immediate help at the scene. 

Interestingly, during the curing period all good touchy human interest angles still 

continuing reported, i.e.; message of moral support, voluntary announcement of contribution, 

all helping hands were pouring from all directions and thoughtfully forwarded. While 

mainstream media are more focus on the angle of conflict, the citizen media offers opportunity 

to fill information gap on human touch, curiosity, and interest. The forward mail play crucial 

role in expanding communication and information network. 

et’s examine the role of citizen media in political democracy perspective. It is known 

that when the people and the media were suppressed, people tend to turn to other form of 

expression. So do as the Thai situation, the stronger the media were controlled/suppressed, 

the higher the citizen will look for other channel of information and expression. 

The case of Prime Minister Taksin Chinnawatra’s government who strongly believes 

in capitalism and keenly used media as a means to support his political will. During his 

period, several attempts have been done to manipulate and influence the media either by 

marketing technique, business strategy, financial means, or political power. Freedom of 

expression in mainstream media was noticeably decline. Free media seem to cautiously 

express their political opinions/comments that might cause the lost of advertising revenue 

which would consequence their business survival. 

This led the people turn to find their place in the Net where they can freely post all 

insight and hidden stories. The Internet does open unlimited space for citizen to access, to 

search, to surf needed information and can freely share their political ideas with out restriction. 

Communication in the Net society (email, forward mail, personal website, webblog, etc.) is 

156



such continuing mobilize people’s perception about the PM image and performance. It could 

say that the movement in citizen media has successfully convert many people who used to be 

fond of the PM to opposite attitudes. This was confirmed by overwhelming numbers of 

people nationwide gathering in the ‘Taksin Get Out’ massive protest during political chaos in 

early 2006. This indeed proved that the power of citizen media is the power of free expression 

of the citizens. 

Citizen media, Internet, do play crucial role in Thai political democratization, 

significant source of information, free channel of

the Media and Democracy in the Knowledge Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles