• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.111-139
• /
• 2003

This study aims to explore concepts of public interest and universal service which have been essential ideologies and policy goals, but which have been a the state of conceptual chaos so far. It sheds light upon three aspects : (1) the origins of public interest and universal service, (2) conceptual components of public interest and universal service, and (3) the implementation of public interest and universal service ideologies into policy. As a result of this analysis, it was found, firstly, that public interest of broadcasting originated from western countries, was rooted in the United States, and then spread all over the world later. After universal service was begun in the United States, it became a key ideology of information and telecommunication in European countries and other countries as well. Secondly, when examining the conceptual components, more differences were found than commonalities between these two concepts. The most conspicuous common point was universalism The concept of public interest includes not only universal service, but also connotes other components such as independence, diversity, quality, and locality which are related to content. Thirdly, when these two ideologies are implemented into policy, there Is a contrast. This study shows that the public interest ideology was realized into regulatory policies, while the universal service ideology was realized into supportive policies. In conclusion, this paper suggests more exact usage academically, showing the differences between the two concepts. This paper recommends an enforced legal duty of broadcasters to provide universal service when the current broadcasting law is revised.

• Science of Emotion and Sensibility
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.31-44
• /
• 2022

Power and status are core elements that distinguish social classes and strongly influence social interaction. Although they are the foundation of social influence, they have different origins (Fragale et al., 2011). While power usually is based on personal ability or legal, institutional legitimacy, status is rooted in voluntary support from other people. Hence, whereas people with power often demonstrate egoistic behavior, those with high status show relationship-based altruism (Hasty & Maner, 2020). People recognize the difference between the two and have stereotypical beliefs or expectations about the people's behavior with high power or status (Magee, 2009). The current research tested how the judgment on social exclusion, the unique social influence of power and status, changes depending on the actor's power and status. We constructed social exclusion scenarios in which we manipulated actors' power and status and asked participants to rate an actor's pain and behavioral fairness. Participants' ratings showed that the actor's fairness and pain would differ depending on the actor's power and status (Expt. 1), which is consistent with the stereotypes above. In particular, the significant effects of the actor's anonymity in the cases of low power and high status (Expts. 2A, 2B) provide further evidence for the proposal that status but not power originates from voluntary support from others.