[Culture Op-Ed] Is KBS’s ‘Copying’ Problem Due to Old Media’s Characteristic Complacency?

Some readers may find the very premise unfamiliar. But anyone interested in broadcasting and entertainment has probably heard this story to death over the past dozen or so years through various media critiques. Centered especially on variety shows, KBS entertainment programs have become notorious for “copying.” Overall, KBS program ratings have plunged over the past decade not only because of media diversification, but, according to many interpretations, because of this kind of “copying” and a broader decline in creativity. At root, the explanation is that terrestrial broadcasters that held “hegemony” for decades—old media—fell into their characteristic complacency.

First, let us look at how far things have gone. Below is part of a SPOTV News article from February 14, 2020, titled “‘Why Does KBS Make Shows by Copying?’ ... ‘Gura Rail,’ ‘Serial Question Horse’ willing even to risk friendly fire.”

“First, Kim Gura met with Lee Hoonhee, head of Production Division 2 in charge of KBS variety programs. Kim pointed out similarities between hit programs on other networks and KBS flagship variety shows, and Director Lee acknowledged, ‘There were some cases where people had reason to say that. We need to dispel that image.’ Kim Gura also pressed Lee Jaewoo, head of KBS’s Variety Center, saying, ‘People ask why KBS copies programs like this,’ and fired off questions using examples such as ‘Infinite Challenge’ and ‘2 Days & 1 Night,’ ‘I Am a Singer’ and ‘Immortal Songs,’ and ‘Dad! Where Are We Going?’ and ‘The Return of Superman.’ These were sensitive and potentially painful questions for KBS, but ‘Gura Rail’ and Kim Gura were like a runaway locomotive pouring them out.

Director Lee responded, drawing laughter, ‘We said let’s not do something that looks like something we’ve seen elsewhere, so we did Kim Gura’s “A Nation for Children.”’ KBS2’s ‘A Nation for Children,’ a program jointly undertaken by the ‘Gura Rail’ PD and Kim Gura, aired for about four months beginning last July, but managed ratings only in the 1–2% range.”

For reference, the above-mentioned “Gura Rail” is a KBS web variety show released through the YouTube channel Studio K. In other words, the situation had reached the point where KBS itself, albeit through a web-based program, was making self-deprecating jokes about its reputation for “copying.” It had become that widespread and had been criticized that many times. In a sense, it had become a near “steady seller” topic in Korean popular culture over the past decade or so.

And in truth, there was reason for that—especially at the level of variety programming. Even if one only collects the cases of “public humiliation” exposed through news reports, the list is quite long. Let us mention just a few representative examples.

Why Is KBS’s “Copying” Problem, One Pointed Out Even in National Assembly Audits, So Severe Specifically in “Variety”?

The issue of KBS variety programs “copying” first began surfacing in the media around 2013. Shows mentioned above, such as “2 Days & 1 Night,” “Immortal Songs,” and “The Return of Superman,” were criticized as effectively plagiarizing the concepts of programs on other broadcasters. By around 2015, complaints and condemnation had reached an uncontrollable level.

“KBS President Cho Daehyun has spoken up about controversy over KBS copying other broadcasters. At 2 p.m. on the 1st, a press conference was held at the International Conference Hall of the KBS New Building in Yeouido, Seoul, regarding KBS’s push to normalize the license fee. Before beginning the main press conference, President Cho said, ‘I saw the articles delivered this morning by the PR office. There were articles related to KBS and broader stories about the media industry. Since it’s a special day, I looked again,’ referring to KBS 2TV’s ‘A Style For You.’

President Cho said, ‘There was praise related to KBS, but there were also stories saying we copied other broadcasters. From the standpoint of KBS as a public broadcaster, that is embarrassing. I think this is a call for KBS to go its own way, the KBS way.’ ‘A Style For You’ began its live internet broadcast at 1 p.m. that day. The internet broadcast of ‘A Style For You,’ billed as a ‘global style show,’ sparked controversy over whether it was copying MBC’s recently buzzworthy ‘My Little Television.’” (from MyDaily, June 1, 2015, “KBS President Cho Daehyun: ‘Controversy over KBS copying other broadcasters is embarrassing’”)

This was the moment the “copying” issue was finally raised at a press conference on raising the license fee—something that had been a long-cherished goal of KBS for decades. Public opinion opposing the fee hike was growing around the argument, “Why should KBS raise the license fee when it just copies other broadcasters’ programs?” Until then, apologies had been made at most by the responsible CP or, at best, the head of the variety department. This was the point when the KBS “copying” issue was finally coming out of the president’s own mouth.

After that, however, such incidents became more and more frequent. Here is the situation in 2018.

“The KBS-EBS parliamentary audit by the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee on the 19th was in effect a rerun of the KBS presidential candidate hearing held last March. (omitted) Even so, some lawmakers brought up KBS’s copying of formats, the TV license fee collection system, and the treatment of KBS writers, prompting President Yang Seungdong to make some meaningful remarks.

Rep. Lee Sangmin of the Democratic Party of Korea claimed that after Mnet’s ‘Produce 101’ and JTBC’s ‘Let’s Eat Dinner Together’ aired, KBS produced similar programs such as ‘The Unit’ and ‘Spend One Night.’ President Yang replied, ‘As a public broadcaster, we will fulfill our responsibility to produce creative and experimental programs in order to do our duty.’” (from PD Journal, October 19, 2018, “KBS parliamentary audit repeats the old practice of public scolding while pending issues are put aside”)

From here on, it had become a point of criticism raised even in a parliamentary audit. And somehow, the list of programs mentioned under “copying allegations” had grown. In other words, the problem was not being improved continuously. Then came “Gura Rail” in 2020. That itself is evidence that things had of course still not improved even two years later. On top of that, the farce now unfolded of asking KBS executives about the “copying” situation through KBS’s own program. The controversy had effectively gone past the critical point.

What is interesting is that even across the full range of entertainment programs, as well as various culture, current affairs, and news programs, KBS’s “copying allegations” have been especially severe only in “variety” shows. In the same entertainment sector, for example, in the drama genre, it is not that KBS never “copies,” but rather that terrestrial broadcasting as a whole—that is, old media as a whole—has been criticized. Indeed, KBS is rather on the better side when it comes to “copying” in dramas.

Among the countless drama “copying allegations” over the past quarter century, MBC has faced major accusations that “Jealousy,” “Three Guys and Three Girls,” “Three Friends,” “The Legend,” “Medical Brothers,” “Youth,” “Romance,” “Love Letter,” “The Woman Next Door,” and “Wonderful Life” copied Japanese dramas, American sitcoms, manga, and so on. And in drama “copying allegations,” the leading offender is in effect SBS. “My Love from the Star,” “Palace of Dreams,” “Happy Together,” “Law Firm,” “Successful Story of a Bright Girl,” “Shoot for the Stars,” “Bad Family,” “Hello My Teacher,” “49 Days,” “King of Ambition,” “Yong-pal,” “I Can Hear Your Voice,” “Temptation of Wife,” “War of Money,” and “The King and I” have all faced allegations of copying works from various media including Hollywood films, Japanese dramas, manga, and detective novels. KBS is relatively sparse by comparison. Only “IRIS” and “The Woman Who Goes Left, The Man Who Goes Right,” for instance, have faced “copying allegations” involving Japanese novels and Japanese dramas. If anything, that is comparatively a decent record.

So the question is: why has KBS, in “variety” alone, failed to escape “copying allegations” for over a decade, becoming so notoriously associated with them that its president has had to explain himself directly even at license-fee press conferences and parliamentary audits?

“Half Civil Servants, Half Private-Sector Employees”: Every Problem Begins with KBS’s Identity

Generally, as mentioned at the outset, this problem is attributed to the complacency and laziness characteristic of old media. But then KBS’s relatively decent performance in dramas becomes hard to understand. If the company as a whole remains trapped in the easygoing business habits of the old “three terrestrial channels” era and is therefore numb to “copying,” should that not also apply to dramas?

But this point needs to be considered differently. We should begin by examining the difference in nature between dramas and variety shows. Variety, when you look closely, operates by somewhat different commercial logic from drama. Variety is centered on “trends” themselves. It is closely tied to the mood of the times. Of course dramas also reflect their era, but not on the same level as variety. Variety becomes popular when it captures current catchphrases, changing customs, and the more extreme and provocative features of contemporary society as they are.

And this is precisely where the problem arises. Unfortunately, KBS is the peculiar kind of company that cannot simply reflect “that kind of concept” as it is. As everyone knows, KBS is a public broadcaster and a public enterprise. But its revenue structure is rather unusual. According to the “Broadcasting Business Operators’ Financial Status Report” released by the Korea Communications Commission in June last year, as of 2018, license fees accounted for only 46.0% of KBS’s total revenue. The rest came from advertising revenue, retransmission fees, and other business income.

So KBS employees are, at least in financial terms, “half civil servants, half private-sector employees.” Once this mixed stance carries over into broadcasting—especially entertainment—the situation becomes complicated. Unlike other public enterprises, where simply providing high-quality service is both public-interest-oriented and commercial at the same time, entertainment is a field in which the two are clearly divided.

Suppose a highly commercial program appears on KBS and becomes a success. Then criticism immediately pours in: how is that any different from a private broadcaster? What is the point of operating on the public’s tax money? Questions are then raised about its public value, and in severe cases, even a mood of refusing to pay the license fee is created. On the other hand, if a program focused on public value appears and posts low ratings, that too becomes a problem. Then comes the criticism: why should my taxes be used to produce a program that nobody watches? The attacks intensify: if you are going to collect the license fee bundled into the electricity bill, then do better; make programs that the public can actually enjoy. Either way, KBS gets grabbed by the hair.

When this situation is repeated, KBS as an organization itself ends up changing into something with a constitution completely different from that of other private broadcasters. It becomes easy for it to turn into the weakest player, mixing together the inert bureaucratic disposition of civil servants—where the main thing is to avoid criticism—and the private-company disposition that nonetheless requires competitive instinct. Its body is already too stiff to take on the challenges and risks necessary for survival, yet it is also too difficult to let go of immediate commercial concerns in order to decide everything purely by standards of public value.

In that case, only one methodology suggests itself: a line of so-called “lazy commercialism.” A way to avoid excessive commercial risk while also defending the value of the license fee. It means spotting successful models already put out by other private broadcasters, stripping out only the overly provocative parts, and then presenting the result. This is not really a problem confined to the variety department. Even where plagiarism controversies do not erupt, this type of method—style-copying or trend-chasing—is visible throughout KBS. It simply appears more frequently and more blatantly in variety, where trendiness is emphasized; the “framework” underpinning that situation is firmly in place so that the same thing can happen in any field.

There Are Solutions, But the Bizarre Reality Is That the Chances Are Vanishingly Small

There has long been discussion of this same structural problem at KBS. But no matter how much one discusses it, the conclusion is always that one of two options must be chosen: either privatize it fully into a private broadcaster based entirely on competitive logic, or move to a structure operated entirely by license fees and thereby escape commercialism itself.

The problem is that, at present, both directions are close to impossible. Let us look first at the latter. To raise the 2018 license-fee share of 46.0% to 100%, a fee increase would naturally be necessary. And the issue of the KBS license fee has been a chronic problem raised consistently under every administration since the 2000s. Yet it has not been resolved. It has been frozen at 2,500 won for no less than 40 years, from 1981 to the present.

The reason is simple. KBS is a broadcaster strongly influenced by the government of the day, beginning with the fact that its president is appointed by the administration. That is the fate of a public broadcaster. This makes the problem complicated. If one administration raises the issue of increasing the license fee, the opposition almost automatically comes out against it. Then even if that opposition later takes power, the exact same situation repeats itself. In the end, driven by political logic, the license-fee increase has remained merely a “problem issue” for at least the past 20 years, while an actual solution always remains distant. Even the outlook for future resolution is bleak.

The former option, privatization, has also been discussed for quite some time. The proposal is to sell and privatize only KBS2TV, the commercially oriented entertainment-focused channel. Then KBS1, EBS, and various other public broadcasters would be combined into a smaller-scale public broadcaster operating solely on license fees. A public broadcaster small enough to be sustained even with resources amounting to only 46.0% of current total revenue. In that case, the model would be not Japan’s NHK or Britain’s BBC, but something closer to America’s PBS.

But under current circumstances—where the privatization of public enterprises itself has become a major political flashpoint—this option has effectively reached the point of being taboo even to mention. Even the privatization of MBC and YTN, which is said to be more straightforward logically than privatizing KBS2, cannot really be raised. The idea itself is distorted as if it were some kind of evil logic.

In the end, that means a fundamental solution to KBS variety’s “copying” is also difficult. Beyond variety alone, it becomes difficult to solve KBS’s very “constitution.” The targets of “copying allegations” will only continue to increase. The issue will keep being raised in parliamentary audits and elsewhere. A broadcaster that always aired programs saying every problem can be solved only by changing one’s “constitution” somehow turns a blind eye to this matter. It is hard to understand why.

---

Original title: [문화칼럼] KBS ‘베끼기’ 문제는 올드미디어 특유의 안일함 탓이다?

Author: Mun-won Lee

Date: 2020-04-16

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=8&idx=22558