朴당선인 '소통 강화'에 대한 요구 거세져

“전에 발표된 바와 같이..” 삼청동에 위치한 박근혜 대통령 당선인 인수위원회의 기자실에서 자주 들을 수 있는 말이다. 

인수위는 그들이 최근 발표한 계획들에 대한 의미, 결정의 배경에 대해 묻는 기자들에게 전에 이미 공개된 발표 내용을 되풀이한다.

차기정부의 출범을 불과 몇 주 남기고 박 당선인의 “해설적”이기보다 “결과적”인 소통의 스타일이 비판의 대상이 되고 있다.

박 당선인이 새누리당 대표를 맡던 시기와 작년 선거에서의 당내 불화설이 나돌 때에도 이와 비슷한 논란이 있었다.

결론지어지지 않은 정보의 공개를 피해 추측을 최소화 시키려는 박 당선인의 커뮤니케이션 스타일은 이론상으로는 맞을지 몰라도 박근혜 정부가 ‘불통’의 정부로 인식될 수 있는 가능성이 있다.

홍보 담당 인선이 이뤄지지 않은 이 시기에 전문가들은 차기 정부의 소통능력을 판단하는 것은 섣부르다고 말한다.

그러나 그들은 또 국민의 필요를 받아드리고 그에 맞게 변화하는 것에 실패해 국민의 지지를 잃는 악순환을 끊기 위해서 박 당선인이 자신과 선대 대통령들의 PR 전략을 분석할 필요가 있다고 말했다.

“정부의 홍보 정책은 그들의 비젼과 전략면에서 모호한 면이 있다. 관료적이고 산발적인 방법에 의지해 일방적으로 메시지를 전달한다”고 광운 대학교 이종혁 교수가 말했다.

이 교수는 또 “정부의 소통이 정책에 직접적으로 영향을 준다는 것을 고려할 때, 그리고 정부의 커뮤티커이션에 대한 국민의 요구가 증가함에 따라 차기 정부의 소통에 대한 검토는 불가피하다”라고 덧붙였다.

이번 논란은 지난 12월 27일 인수위 윤창준 대변인이 인수위 인선을 발표하던 때부터 시작됐다. 

박 당선인의 “보안”에 대한 중요성을 다시 강조하려는 시도로든 또는 단지 드라마틱한 효과를 위해서든지 윤 대변인은 카메라와 기자들 앞에서 ‘박 당선인에게서 직접 건네 받았다’며  봉투를 열어 인수위 인선을 발표했다.

하지만 윤 대변인과 그 팀의 누구도 인수위 구성원의 선택에 대한 질문에 답하지 못해 그들 역시도 이 내용을 처음 접하는 듯한 보였다.

이 사건은 박 당선인 커뮤니케이션 팀이 미숙하고 폐쇄되어 있다는 지울 수 없는 인상을 남겼다. 

인수위에서도 이런 엄격한 분위기는 계속됐다. 김용준 인수위원장은 1월 6일 열린 첫 번째 본회의에서 “지위에 관계 없이 여기서의 일을 누설하는 사람은 그에 대한 책임을 지게 될 것이다”라고 경고했다. 이는 추측성 정보의 누설을 막아 혼란을 피한다는 박 당선인의 원칙과 맞물리는 발언이었다.

이화여대 최대석 교수가 1월 12일 인수위에서 물러나자 인수위와 박 당선인의 비밀스러운 이미지는 더 확대됐다.

최 교수의 갑작스런 사퇴를 둘러싸고 ‘가족과 관련된 일신상의 이유다. 대북 노선을 둘러싼 갈등이 있었다’는 등의 추측이 난무하는 가운데 인수위원 중 누구도 사퇴이유에 대해서는 설명하지 않았다.

지난 1월 29일 박 당선인의 첫 번째 국무총리 지명자 김용준이 자신 사퇴하자 비판은 더 거세졌다.

보도된 바에 따르면 박 당선인은 지명자 누출에 대한 불안감에 정식 검증을 거치지 않고 김용준 인수위원장을 지명했는데 김 위원장의 도덕적 결함이 드러나면서 박 당선인의 격리된 결정 방법에도 문제가 있다는 것이 다시 한 번 강조됐다.

총리실과 인선위가 신속하게 김 위원장을 둘러싼 의혹에 대처하지 못한 점도 박 당선인의 PR 능력에 대한 의구심을 증폭시켰다.

박 당선인의 홍보팀은 PR전문가가 아닌 광고 전문가이자 교수인 국민대학교 디자인학부 변추석 교수가 진두지휘해왔다.

사건들이 줄이어 일어나면서 여당의원들도 걱정의 목소리를 내비쳤다.

새누리당 이한구 원내대표는 1월 28일 인수위와의 회의에서 “나는 혼란을 막으려는 의도로 인해 지나친 보안에 대한 논란이 생긴 것을 이해한다. 국민들의 궁금증과 질문을 충족해 주는 데에 더 주의를 기울이면 좋겠다는 생각이 든다”고 밝힌바 있다.

야당의 더 가혹하게 박 당선인의 소통방식을 비난했다.

윤 전 장관은 31일 서울 창성동 정부청사 별관에서 열린 대통령직 인수위 국민대통합위원회(위원장 한광옥)와의 비공개 간담회에서 박 당선인의 단점으로 “수직적•폐쇄적•권위주의적 리더십”을 들며 “그런 모습이 국민통합에 도움이 안 된다”고 지적했다.

그는 “인수위가 구성된 후에도 박 당선인이 (예전 당 대표 시절) 보여준 모습이 여전히 남아 있다”며 이같이 말했다.

윤 전 장관은 또 “국민통합은 갈등이 없는 사회를 만드는 것이 아니라 갈등을 잘 관리하고 조절해 국민의 의사를 하나로 모아가는 시스템이 잘 작동해야 이뤄진다”며 “그것은 정치의 역할인데 잘되지 않고 있다”고 지적했다.

인수위의 소통을 향상시키려는 노력이 없었던 것은 아니다. 지난 1월 11일에는 웹사이트를 개설해 의견과 제안들을 모은바 있다. 또 이 웹사이트는 1월 26일과 27일 인수위와의 회의 동안 박 당선인의 발언을 공개했다.

그러나 이러한 시도는 상호간의 커뮤니케이션에 대한 요구에는 불충분한 것으로 인식됐다.

어떤 이들은 박 당선인의 보안에 대해 언론에 대한 책임론을 제기하기도 한다.

“언론은 뉴스의 가치를 높이기 위해 전체적인 내용을 간추리고 “인용 저널리즘”에 의지하는 관습에서 벗어나야 한다. 언론은 진실을 명확하게 전달하면서 단편적인 사실을 통해 100%의 진실을 밝혀내는 것은 어려운 일이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 언론은 현실을 보여줘야 한다”고 경성대학교 광고 홍보과의 박기철 교수는 말했다.

갤럽 코리아가 1월 28일부터 2월 1일까지 성인 남년 1,511명을 대상으로 한 설문에 따르면 52%의 응답자가 박 당선인이 일을 잘하고 있다고 대답했다. 이는 2주전 같은 질문에 대답한 응답자에서 3% 포인트 감소한 수치이며, 12월 19일 대선에서의 박 당선인의 득표율 51.55%와 비슷한 수치이다.

이는 선대 대통령들과 비교했을 때 상당히 낮은 수치로 이명박 대통령은 같은 시기에 70-80%의 지지율을 얻은 바 있다.     

사회학자 폴 레자스펠드는 커뮤니케이션이란 아이디어가 언론매체로부터 여론 주도자들에게 흘러가고 또 다시 더 많은 사람들에게 전해지는 다중적인 흐름이라고 말했다.

이 이론은 1940년 성립됐지만, 한 단체에서 대중으로 직접적으로 이뤄지는 “위로부터 아래로의” 커뮤니케이션은 잘 받아드려 지지 않을 수 있다며 대중은 이 커뮤니케이션의 결과물로 어떤 것도 얻을 수 없는 즉 언론과 같은 단체에 의해 전달 되야 메시지에 더 신뢰감을 갖는다는 주장은 현시대에도 적용될 수 있는 이 이론의 기본원칙이라 할 수 있다.

소셜 네트워킹 서비스와 같은 새로운 미디어가 출현한 지금 사용자와 대중은 더 영리해 지고 있다고 전문가들은 말한다.

“사람들이 PR을 생각할 때, 그들은 모든 절차의 마지막 과정이라고 생각하는 경향이 있다 예를 들면 어떻게 광고를 재미있게 꾸미냐와 같은 일에 집중하게 된다. 이와 같은 책략은 중요하지만, 그 전에 논리와 근거가 확실한 지지를 이루는 전략을 만드는 것이 중요하다”고 이종혁 교수가 말했다.

이 교수는 “현실에서는 정책이 사람들에게 전해질 때 대중의 의견을 형성하는 사전준비가 필요하다. 그러나 우리 같은 케이스에는 반대나 논란이 일어났을 때에나 이와 같은 조치가 이뤄진다”고 덧붙였다.

 


<관련 영문 기사>


Park faces calls for improved communication



By Lee Joo-hee

 

“Again, as previously stated ...” is an oft-hear phrase at President-elect Park Geun-hye’s transition committee’s press room in Samcheong-dong, Seoul,

Repeating an earlier statement is often the response to reporters’ questions on the meaning or background of the committee’s latest plan or decision.

Even weeks before the government is launched, this “conclusive” rather than “explicative” style of communication from the Park team had been criticized.

Similar criticism dogged her throughout her years as party leader and during in-party feuds during the presidential election last year. It now seems likely to take its toll on her presidential preparation.

Park’s attempt to minimize speculation by withholding unrefined information may be commendable in theory, but in turn could be branding her government as uncommunicative.

With the administration’s official public relations operations yet to be set up, pundits suggest that it is premature to judge the communication of Park’s future government.

But they say it is time for Park to take a broader examination of her and her predecessors’ PR strategies in order to break the vicious circle in which new governments suffer perpetual decline in public support during their five-year tenure, after failing to keep up with changes in what the public wants.

“The PR of policies by the government have tended to be ambiguous in their vision or strategy, while resorting to bureaucratic and sporadic methods with unilateral messages in an exhibitive and post-mortem manner, with the focus limited on the superficial output,” said professor Lee Jong-hyuk of the Division of Communication Arts, Kwangwoon University.

“Considering how the government’s communication directly influences policies, as well as the growing demand by the people for government communication, it is imperative to review how the future government should communicate,” he said.

A shaky start

It began with the transition committee lineup announcement by the team’s spokesman Yoon Chang-jung on Dec. 27, when the excitement was palpable at the Saenuri Party upon Park’s presidential win on Dec. 19.

In an apparent attempt to highlight Park’s “security” emphasis, or simply for dramatic effect, Yoon, flanked by Park’s two spokespersons Park Sun-kyu and Cho Yoon-sun, unsealed an envelope containing the names of the presidential transition committee members in front of the cameras and journalists at the Saenuri Party headquarters.

He said the envelope directly came from Park. But after this ostentatious performance, neither Yoon or his team was able to answer questions about the background of the personnel choices, apparently learning the news for the first time themselves. The incident left an unforgettable portrayal of Park’s communication team as closed-off and amateurish.

The stringent mood continued at the transition committee, with chairman Kim Yong-joon warning at the first plenary meeting on Jan. 6, “Anyone who talks about the work here will be held responsible regardless of rank.” It was in line with Park’s principle to avoid confusion by preventing leaks of speculative information.

The secretive image was further magnified by the abrupt resignation of Ewha Womans University professor Choi Dae-seok from the transition committee on Jan. 12. Despite wild speculation about the reasons for his sudden withdrawal, ranging from a family-related problem to his dovish position on North Korea, none of Park’s transition committee members were able to explain the reasons for it.

Criticism surged upon the resignation of Kim Yong-joon as the first prime minister-nominee on Jan. 29. The spiraling allegations of his ethical lapses were seen to accentuate problems with Park’s secluded decision-making style, which had reportedly skipped the formal verification process for fear of leaks. The failure of the Prime Minister’s Office or the transition committee to immediately counter the allegations augmented the doubts over Park’s PR abilities.

Park’s PR team within her secretariat has so far been led by an advertising expert, professor Byun Choo-suk of Kookmin University’s College of Design, rather than a PR specialist.

After the series of the mishaps, even ruling party members have begun to voice concern.

“I understand that the (controversy over excessive security) derived from the deeper intention to avoid confusion. It would be appreciated if you could now pay more attention to satisfying the people’s curiosity and questions,” Saenuri Party floor leader Lee Hahn-koo said during a meeting with the transition committee on Jan. 28.

Harsher criticism came from opposition figures.

“(Park’s) top-down, closed-off and authoritarian leadership” is her shortcoming and such an image does not help achieve the unity touted by the president-elect, said former Environment Minister Yoon Yeo-joon during a meeting with Park’s transition committee’s subpanel on people’s unity on Jan. 31.

Yoon, a former conservative politician and mentor, had helped the main opposition Democratic United Party’s presidential candidate Moon Jae-in last year.

“People’s unity comes not by creating a society that is free of conflict, but by well managing and adjusting the conflicts, thereby activating a system where the people’s purpose is gathered together,” Yoon said.

There have been efforts by the transition committee to improve communication, such as by opening a website on Jan. 11 to collect opinions and suggestions. It also disclosed full texts of Park’s remarks made during the committee meetings on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27. But the attempts were considered far short of meeting the demands for reciprocal communication.

“Technically, the transition committee is a model example of taking the advantage of its ‘superior’ position over the media and by well-controlling the internal information,” said a communications strategist in Seoul, who wished to remain anonymous.

“But systematically, the presidential transition committee is too substantial an organization that receives high expectations from the people for their spokespersons to merely act as messengers, rather than having in-depth understanding of the contents,” the official said.

Some also pointed to the responsibility of the press for Park’s high-strung security.

“The media must also break away from relying on the so-called ‘quotation journalism’ where the full context are abbreviated for sake of higher news value. While the media vows to clarify the truth, it is difficult to shed light on 100 percent of truth through fragmentary facts, although they may show reality,” said professor Park Ki-chul of the Department of Advertising Public Relations at Kyungsung University.

Park is already seeing sluggish public support ratings.

In a survey of 1,511 adults conducted by Gallup Korea on Jan. 28-Feb. 1, only 52 percent responded that the president-elect was doing a good job. That was a 3 percentage point decline from the same survey on Jan. 14-18, and close to the 51.55 percent of votes that had went to Park in the Dec. 19 election. It is also much lower than those of preceding presidents, such as Lee, who enjoyed around 70 to 80 percent of approval ratings in the same period.

System overhaul

Sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld said communication was a multistep flow where ideas flow from the mass media to opinion leaders, then to wider population.

While this theory is of the 1940s, the principle still holds true in that a direct “top-down” communication by an organization may not be well-received by the public who tend to place more credibility on messages spread by parties that supposedly don’t have anything to gain from the outcome of the communication, such as the media.

Now, with the advent of new media such as social networking services, the customers, or in this case, the public, have grown even smarter, the pundits said.

“When people think of PR, they tend to think of it as the final step of measure, such as by focusing on how to embellish the advertisement and so forth. While such tactics are important, before the tactics need to be strategy, grounds and logic to support it,” said professor Lee Jong-hyuk.

“In reality, when a policy is communicated to the people, there needs to be a preliminary step of forming public opinion. But in our case, such a measure is usually taken only when opposition or controversy is raised.”

Professor Jo Sam-seup of Department of Public Relations and Advertising, Sookmyung Women’s University, agreed.

“While the past governments met the demands of the times and achieved meaningful accomplishments in state administrations, the people tend to remember most of them as ‘failed governments,’ in their image,” he said.

It is because they have overlooked or diverted from the reality where distrust, anxiety and dissatisfaction prevail in Korean society when pushing through their unilateral PR strategies for policies, he explained.

“The society in particular lacks trust toward the leadership of the government. And it is crucial to recover the trust, such as in making personnel decisions,” he said.

All past governments suffered from trust issues due to problems associated with irregularities or personnel decisions, most of which had nothing to do with the actual policies, he said.

“In order to restore trust in a leader’s decisions, integrity, competency and dependability are the key factors that should be considered.”

Professor Lee further suggested a systematic overhaul.

“Communication is not a general term, but an important professional criterion that needs management. Even a slight change in the order of process would lead to side effects,” he said, citing the failed attempt by the Lee Myung-bak administration to introduce a tri-color arrow traffic light system in April of 2011.

The move, which was scrapped within a month due to irrecoverable public opinion against it, is considered one of the standout examples of failed communication.

The idea was to adopt the more internationally-used system of the red-yellow-green alternating arrow from the existing system where an arrow indicating a left flashes only in green.

While the system reportedly took two years to develop, it was pushed without enough preliminary research, and the government’s show of determination to push through the change only aggravated public opinion. It reached a point where the media was quipping it as the standout example of Lee Myung-bak’s poor administration style, focusing on how much money would be required for the change.

A public hearing was hastily called, but was considered belated. As the issue spread to the political circles, the government eventually disbanded the project on May 16, 2011.

“The government tends to hold public hearings on cases that are controversial. But public hearings should be held in advance. It’s the same as treating a broken bone before scanning it with an X-ray,” Lee said.

In order for the communication to work, the government should first share what the problem is, before broadcasting what their policy is, he said.

When applied to reality, where a leader’s style is hard to change, Lee suggested a systematic approach by those that are working under her, such as by enhancing the capabilities and discretion of the internal PR specialists or creating a team for each ministry to be in charge of communication, issue management and surveying the public opinion.

He specifically mentioned the now-abolished Government Information Agency as an organization that could cooperate with each ministry and offer strategic suggestions. Despite initial expectations of the body’s revival, Park’s government reorganization plan announced on Jan. 15 had omitted to plan to restore the agency.

The government’s bureaucratic obsession over the output, meaning the quantity of PR such as the number of television advertisements, should also be amended as that tendency often leads to there only being “output” but no “outcome,” Lee said.

“This propensity leads to billions of won of budget being concentrated into inefficient campaigns like advertising. This means there needs to be an approach to the public by studying the target audience.”

Park Ki-chul offered an even more fundamental change in the way of thinking for successful public relations between the government and the masses.

“The government’s paradigm should go beyond that of economy and confrontation,” he said.

He cited former President Roh Moo-hyun’s capital relocation project as being based on the regional antagonism, or President Lee Myung-bak’s four river project as ultimately leading to real estate rivalry in the surrounding areas.

President-elect Park’s campaign on “happiness” is also premised on the economic paradigm rather than a philosophy such as by pledging more growth of conglomerates, he noted.