【作者】 谢春林；

【导师】 李良荣；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 传播学， 2006， 博士

【副题名】政府规制的视角

【摘要】 从1996年中共中央、国务院要求新闻出版广播电视业“治散治滥”算起，中国政府立志做强做大电视产业已逾10年，无论是政府、业界还是学界，莫不孜孜以求。个中既有面对西方列强自觉弱小的焦虑，也有国际政治、经济地位上升后增强文化“软实力”的期望。在经济、文化日益全球化、中国社会全面转型的今天，社会主义意识形态面临各种挑战。中国电视产业肩负着与西方电视竞争、满足国内视听需求、整合意识形态、缓解社会矛盾等多重使命。做强做大电视产业已成为事关国家安全、社会稳定和执政党地位稳固的大事，其意义远远超出产业自身的发展壮大。然而，在经过10年来的探索与奋斗后，人们发现中国电视产业的规模、实力、公信力以及在国际上的竞争力和影响力等等，都不尽人意；号称“暴利行业”的广电系统整体赢利水平十分低下；节目创新能力不足，核心竞争力不强。导致电视产业难以做强做大的主要原因之一是政府规制存在的种种问题。市场结构方面：“四级办电视”产业布局直接导致结构松散、市场集中度偏低；“党的喉舌”单一定性决定了节目和服务的差异化程度低，严重影响了中国电视节目和服务的均衡发展。“行政许可制”导致电视市场进入壁垒高筑，市场竞争受到限制。市场行为方面：节目规制松紧失度，导致公信力下降和节目出口量小；广告规制形同虚设，不良广告和不良广告行为泛滥；队伍规制责权失衡，导致电视从业者专业人格和电视企业家成长环境的双重缺失。规制机制方面：规制主体关系不平衡，难以保证规制的公平与公正；立法过程不科学，难以保证规制的权威和完善；执法过程不规范，难以保证规制的效率和稳定。规制体制方面：定性单一，所有频道都是喉舌，都是国有独资的事业单位，客观上缺乏资金，主观上缺乏活力：管办合一，规制不公和寻租腐败时有发生，电视媒体成为政府机构的附属物，没有市场主体的正常权利；管理分级，必然导致地方保护主义盛行，阻碍全国统一大市场和超大规模电视企业的形成，产业整体优势不能发挥。因此，中国电视规制必须改革。规制改革同时面临着有利条件和阻碍因素。市场经济体制确立，政府体制改革推进，文化体制改革启动，国际传播竞争压力是推进规制改革的四大动力系统。与此同时，中国电视规制改革面临六大难题，它们是意识形态安全、政府职能转变、塑造市场主体、平衡利益关系、打破行政垄断和完善依法规制。在动力和阻力的博弈中，中国电视规制改革一定是一个缓慢的渐进的过程。缓慢不等于停止，电视规制改革的时代潮流不可阻挡。媒体理念发展和规制理念创新是中国电视规制改革的前提。“喉舌论”不发展，电视产业就不能做强做大。要正确、全面认识电视媒体在新时期的角色、功能的新变化，以“软实力论”来指导电视产业的规制改革。在“软实力论”指导下，我们应该树立三种新的规制理念。一是全球存在理念。全球化信息时代的传媒不能仅仅在一国存在，它要在整个世界空间范围内存在。因此，一方面国内市场要对外开放，另一方面国内电视企业要走出去参与国际市场的竞争。二是社会参与理念。社会参与是指广电系统以外的社会资本能够更广泛参与电视媒体经营和独立拥有电视媒体经营权。因为软实力是由政府和社会共同创造的，社会力量是构建国家软实力不可或缺的生产力。三是价值兼容理念。价值兼容理念是指对非主流意识形态或价值观念的节目内容能够包容，这是由国内社会日益分化和国际社会多姿多彩的客观环境决定的。软实力的核心，是价值认同。中国既需要现代性价值认同，也需要后现代性价值认同，特别是对国内年轻一代和国外受众，更应宽容、理解他们的后现代性价值理念，并以东方文化的普世价值去赢得市场。中国电视规制改革必须牢牢抓住体制、机制这两个关节点。中国电视规制机制的理想模式是：关系均衡、规制有据．、执行有力、行业自律的有机结合。关系均衡是指规制机构、电视媒体和观众三者的关系要均衡，特别是观众的公共利益要得到保障：规制有据包括适度规制和依法规制；执行有力既要求规制机构具有独立性和权威性，又要对执法过程进行监督和制衡；行业自律与政府规制是产业规制的两个系统，都是为了约束主体追求效用最大化的行为，其作用还在于避免政府的过度干预和承担媒体应负的社会责任。规制体制的改革方向是：分类定性，管办分开，统分结合。分类定性是要解决电视产业经营的名分问题。分类定性不会损害意识形态安全。因为，公益性频道继续承担着意识形态工具的职能，经营性频道事实上是发挥不出多大“喉舌”功能的。管办分开的主要目的是为了解放生产力。管办分开也不会损害意识形态安全。管办分开不等于不管，不等于否定“党管媒体”的原则，不等于管不住。管办分开后确保意识形态安全的方法很多，如内容控制、法律控制、技术控制等都是保证舆论导向的有效办法。统分结合的主要目的是解决市场分散和地方党政对电视的需求问题。统分结合是指对经营性频道实行垂直管理，对公益性频道实行分级管理。“统”是由电视产业的经济特征决定的。经营性频道的主要目标是经济效益，垂直管理是形成统一大市场的制度基础。“分”是由中央与地方的关系和地方党政对电视的需求决定的。中国电视产业的困境起因于政府规制的弊端，做强做大愿景的实现也将有赖于政府规制的改革。更多还原

【Abstract】 Ever since 1996, a year when China’s central government requested that news publishing and TV broadcasting industry reconstruct for better order and efficiency, the nation has tried hard to enhance its TV industry for over 10 years. Government, industry professionals, and academics have all contributed in this endeavor, hoping that Chinese TV industry may one day match international standards and help enhance the nation’s soft power along with the enhancement of its statues in international politics and economy.In an era of economic and cultural globalization and comprehensive social transition, socialist ideology faces varieties of challenge. Chinese TV industry, therefore, bears the responsibility to compete against western TV power, satisfy domestic needs, integrate ideologies, and to alleviate social conflicts. In this sense, the growth of TV industry has become a most significant task which affects not only the industry itself but also national security, social stability, and stability of the ruling party.We have realized, however, that after 10 years of probing and effort, Chinese TV industry has not yet lived up to our expectation in terms of its size, power, public credibility, and competitiveness and affecting power on international stage. TV industry, though referred to as a "high-profit" industry, has a low overall profit level. Program wise, the industry lacks creativity and core competitive power.One of the main reasons for the above said is various problems lies in government regulation.Market structure wise: "Four level TV station systems" directly causes a loose structure and low market concentration level; "Mouthpiece of the party" has determined a low difference level between programs and TV service; this has largely hindered a balanced development of Chinese TV programs and service. "Administrative permit" has caused high entry requirement which results in restriction on market competition.Market action wise: administrative control on TV program changes all the time, this has caused a decline of public credibility and low export rate; regulation has been virtually absent in advertisement sector, this has caused deluge of lousy advertisement.; responsibility among group is not clear, this leads to the absence of a healthy growth background for professionalism and TV entrepreneurship.Regulation mechanism wise: regulative relationship is not balanced, therefore, regulative justice and balance cannot be guaranteed; legislative procedure isun-scientific, therefore, regulative authority and efficiency cannot be guaranteed; law enforcement procedure is also not standardized, therefore, regulative efficiency and stability are not guaranteed either.Regulation regime wise: all channels are defined as party organs and organizations sponsored by the state, therefore they lack both funds and creativity. Regulative party has also performed as a market entity; this causes frequent cases of injustice and corruption. As a result, TV media, deprived of normal rights of market entity, turn out to be affiliates of administrative organizations. Asserted management inevitably leads to local protectionism, hindering the forming of a nationally unified market and super-sized TV corporations. Advantage of industry consolidation, therefore, cannot turn out to be a reality.Therefore, Chinese TV regulation must undergo reforms.Regulation reform faces both supportive condition and obstacles. Four driving forces, namely the establishment of market economic regime, reform of government regime, initiation of reform of cultural regime, and pressure felt under international communication competition. At the same time, TV regulation faces 6 major obstacles, namely ideology security, transformation of governmental function, establishment of market entity, balance of interest, breakdown of administrative monopoly, and maturation of regulation and law enforcement.In the game of driving forces and obstacles, Chinese TV regulation reform is destined to be a slow and gradual process. Slowness, however, does not equal to a halt, regulation reform is inevitable in this era.Media idea innovation is the premise for TV regulation reform. TV industry cannot grow if "mouthpiece theory" is not to develop. We must correctly and comprehensively regard TV media’s role, its changed function in this new era, and we must direct regulation reform with "soft-power theory".Under soft power theory, we should establish three innovative ideas.One is the idea of global existence. In the era of information globalization, media cannot exist in one nation only; it should exist in the whole global space. Therefore, on the one hand, domestic market needs to open up; on the other hand, domestic TV corporations ought to participate in the competition in international market.Second is the idea of social participation. This means that social capital outside TV system participates in TV media operation and independent ownership. Soft power is created by a joint effort of the government and the society, social forces, therefore are indispensable for constructing a nation’s soft power.Third is the compatibleness of values. This is determined by domestic interest differentiation and complicated international environment. Core of soft power lies in compatibleness of value. China needs both modern values as well as post-modern values. We should tolerate domestic young generation as well as foreign TV viewers, try to understand their post-modernist values, and try to win the market war with eastern values.Chinese TV reform must focus on two major points: regime and mechanism.An ideal model for Chinese TV mechanism is: a sound combination of balanced relationship, lawful regulation, effective enforcement, and industry’s self-discipline.Balanced relationship refers to the balance between regulative party, TV media, and TV viewers. Public interest must be satisfied. Lawful regulation refers to a proper degree of regulation and lawful regulative action. Effective enforcement means that regulative party has independence and authority, and it supervises and balance the regulation procedure. Industry’s self-discipline and governmental regulation are two systems of industrial regulation, both for the purpose of restricting industrial actions. The former system also helps avoid over-involvement by the government and aims at bearing obliged social responsibility.Direction for regulative regime is: classified management, separation of the ruling party and market entity, and compatibleness of vertical management and hierarchical management.Classified management will not harm ideology security. It is because that, while public channel continues to function as an ideological tool; commercial channels will not successfully serve ideological purpose anyway.Separation of the ruling party and market entity aims at liberation production ability. This also will not harm ideology security. Such a separation does not mean the party will no longer rule the media, nor does it means a veto for the principle of "party-rules-the-media". There are varieties of ways to guarantee the safety of ideological security, for instance, content control, legislative control, and technological control.Compatibleness of vertical management and hierarchical management aims at solving the problem of market decentralization and meeting the needs of local administration. Compatibleness of vertical management and hierarchical management means the commercial channels will apply vertical management while the public channels hierarchical management. Vertical management is determined by the economic traits of TV industry. Commercial channel aims mainly at economic profit and vertical management is the base for a unified market.Hierarchical management is determined by the relationship between the central government and local government, and the need for TV by local administration.The dilemmas of Chinese TV industry result from the poor government regulation; the growth of TV industry, therefore, also relies on government’s regulation reform.更多还原