透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.226.141.207
  • 學位論文

我國媒體所有權管制政策析論

The Analysis of Media Ownership Regulation Policy in Taiwan

指導教授 : 陳淳文

摘要


在我國,從2008年起媒體併購、結合行為不斷,媒體所有權管制政策逐漸成為熱門的爭議話題。有論者認為媒體所有權管制有益於社會發展,例如維護多元文化、裨益民主政治、確保國家安全及促進公平競爭;但亦有論者從管制困境及副作用、降低市場競爭力以及壟斷所有權不可避免等角度立論,認為媒體所有權管制將不利於社會發展。 本文以為媒體所有權管制乃是媒體管制中最重要的一環,從管制利弊的論辯過程中得以發現,全面地管制或全面地開放皆非現代民主國家該有之政策選項。相反地,應當在參考外國法制及衡量我國現況之後,形塑一套適合我國之媒體所有權管制政策。在外國法制部分,主要觀察美國、英國及德國作法;至於我國現況部分,則可歸納為以下五項因素的影響:全球化、數位匯流、歷史演進、中國因素及商業化。 綜合相關分析後,本研究認為我國媒體所有權管制架構實有不足。為使媒體所有權管制政策臻於健全,應採取以下措施:一、調和及變更媒體所有權管制機關,使NCC成為媒體併購及結合行為之專責機關;二、完善媒體所有權法規,例如明定NCC作成附附款處分之權力及裁量基準、通盤檢討既有媒體法規過時之處、增訂跨媒體法、增設媒金分離條款、賦予主管機關產業資訊蒐集權力以及定期檢討既存媒體所有權管制規則;三、健全執法過程;四、持續落實黨政軍退出媒體條款;五、強化公共媒體經營績效;六、推動媒體問責機制,例如獨立編審原則或編輯室公約等內部自律及公民社群參與之外部監督;七、公民培力及教育,使政治人物、媒體從業人員及一般公民等三類行為者,面對媒體之際皆能有適切表現。

並列摘要


Media mergers and acquisitions happened unceasingly in Taiwan Since 2008. Thus, media ownership regulation policy has gradually become a critical issue. Some argue that media ownership regulation does good to social development, such as maintaining diversity, benefiting democracy, ensuring national security, and promoting fair competition. Nevertheless, in terms of regulatory dilemmas and side effect, decreasing competition in market, and inevitable reasons of monopolization, some believe that media ownership regulation is going to have detrimental repercussions on social development. Media ownership regulation is considered to be the most important part of media regulation in this thesis. From the pros and cons of media ownership regulation, we can find out that no matter entirely regulate or entirely laissez-faire isn’t a policy alternative for modern democratic state. On the Contrary, we should structure a set of media ownership regulation policies that is suitable for Taiwan, after comparing with foreign legal systems and measuring the domestic reality. In the part of foreign legal systems, it mainly focuses on the practice of the U.S., U.K., and Germany. As for the part of domestic reality, it focuses on the following five factors: globalization, digital convergence, history in progress, China factor, and commercialization. All things considered, the framework of media ownership regulation in Taiwan is truly insufficient. In order to accomplish that, we ought to take some measures below. First, reconcile and modify the agencies of media ownership regulations. Second, complete the law of media ownerships. For example, give NCC the power of making additional articles and establish discretional criteria of media laws, enact cross-media laws and media-financial industry separation articles, empower NCC to investigate the industrial information, and review the existing media ownership rules periodically. Third, make sure the process of enforcing laws is robust. Fourth, keep enforcing the article which avoids political power from media. Fifth, strengthen the performance of public media. Sixth, give impetus to media accountability mechanisms, principle of independent editing, a newsroom convention, and citizen participation, for instance. Seventh, empower and educate citizen. For the sake of letting politicians, media workers, and ordinary people all have appropriate interactions with media.

參考文獻


劉靜怡,2011,〈媒體所有權、觀點多元化與言論自由保障:美國法制的觀察〉,《臺大法學論叢》,40(3):1089-1174。
莊迪彭,2011,〈互聯網驅動下的民主化與國家反撲:馬來西亞網路媒體經驗〉,《中華傳播學刊》(20):229-269。
陳炳宏,2005,〈探討廣告商介入電視新聞產製之新聞廣告化現象:兼論置入性行銷與新聞專業自主〉,《中華傳播學刊》(8):209-243。
林承宇,2007,〈當「稀有」可能不再「稀有」:重返廣播電波頻譜「稀有性」的規範立論〉,《傳播與管理研究》,6(2):65-86。
彭心儀,2009,〈論頻譜「稀有資源」的管制原則〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》(75):211-256。

被引用紀錄


謝明謙(2016)。廣電媒體集中化之管制及規範-兼論媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法草案〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610035

延伸閱讀