台灣與南韓在 1960 年代都發展出「官控商營」的電視制 度，但由於在 1980 年代採取了不同的政策，於是走出不同的 路。有鑑於此，本文分析在何種歷史脈絡下兩國採取了不同的 路徑？本文從較寬廣的社會權力結構分析國家的行動邏輯與矛 盾，指出威權主義國家易有正當性危機，為自己埋下不安的種 子；在特定的脈絡下，國家可能採取特定的社會控制，卻減損 某些權力。台灣國府籠絡特定利益團體，卻減損國家自主性， 無力進行電視改革。南韓軍人官僚政權採取強硬控制，在 1980 年將私有電視台整併到國有電視；電視產權改變後，南韓媒體 改革運動卻趁勢而起，要求國有電視實踐公共媒體的精神。從 本文的分析可知，電視產權轉型為公共所有後，媒體改革團體 較有機會推動進一步的革新。

Television systems in Taiwan and South Korea had similar starting points, but followed different routes in the 1980s. This paper mainly asks the question: In what historical contexts have the two countries made options? To approach the problem, this paper analyzes the logic and contradictions of the two states from a wider historical perspective. It mainly argues that authoritarian states tend to have a legitimacy crisis and are forced to adopt certain social controls, but lose certain powers. In Taiwan the party-state mainly adopted co-option measures, but sacrificed state autonomy on television policy. In South Korea the military-bureaucratic regime strongly intervened into the structure of the media and forced the private televisions to merge with the state enterprise. After the ownership transformation, media reform movements in South Korea rose up and demanded that the state television stations fulfill public responsibilities. We can thus conclude that, after the ownership of TV has been transformed from private into public ownership, media reform groups can make further improvements.

電視史;威權主義國家;台灣;南韓

television history; authoritarian states; Taiwan; South Korea