사회적 소수자에 대한 한국인의 인식 연구

Abstract

Media coverage tends to influence public acceptance and interpretation of information. In this case, the ideological nature of the media can influence policy decisions by representing stakeholders’ positions or forming public opinion favorable to them. This study classified newspaper media by ideological tendency and analyzed the patterns and frames of reporting of the 2020 doctors strike. The analysis period is from June 28, 2020, when the Korean Medical Association first mentioned the strike, to September 4, 2020, when an agreement was signed with the government. The subject of analysis consisted of 493 articles from the Chosun-Ilbo, Donga-Ilbo, Hankyoreh, and Kyunghyang-Shinmun that were searched through BigKinds of the Korea Press Foundation during the period. The analysis method is content and frame analysis according to article type, coverage type, information source type and ideological tendency. The findings of quantitative analysis showed that the ratio of case-focused and direct coverage was high in both conservative and progressive media in the article type and the coverage type (P<0.001). However, there was a difference in the types of information sources used in the articles according to the ideological tendencies of the media (P<0.001), and the frames used in the editorials were also different (P<0.05). The qualitative analysis suggests that conservative media mainly emphasized the government’s responsibility in policy promotion through the cause attribution frame, but progressive media criticized the act of of the Medical Association as unethical through the public and moral evaluation frame. The framing methods of the media may be different depending on the ideological tendency. However, if it is expanded and reproduced, it may cause public confusion about health care policies and may ultimately hinder the improvement and development of the health care system. Therefore, it is necessary to actively pay attention to agenda setting and conflict management surrounding public health policy.