이 연구는 국내 주요 일간지 시사 비평칼럼이 어떤 사회적 의제를 어떻게 구성하는지 구성주의 이론을 바탕으로 살펴보고, 다양한 의제를 공론장에 제공해야 한다는 사회적 책무를 적절히 수행하고 있는지 관찰하였다. 이를 위해 1993부터 2021년까지 28년간 <경향신문>, <조선일보>, <중앙일보>, <한겨레> 신문의 오피니언면에 게재된 주요 사내외 시사 칼럼 1,729건의 주의제, 세부 의제, 그리고 프레임을 신문사별, 정부별, 정부 시기별, 신문과 정부의 이념별로 구분해 내용 분석했다. 분석결과, 국내 신문 시사 칼럼은 정치 의제가 가장 많았으며, 그 가운데서도 대통령 의제에 편중되어 사회 공론장에 다양한 의제를 제공하지 못하고 있었다. 보수신문 칼럼은 ‘정치 의제’에, 진보신문 칼럼은 ‘사회 의제’에 더 비중을 두고 있었다. 또 정부 출범 초기에 많았던 대통령 의제가 정부 후반부로 갈수록 감소하는 대신에, 정당 정치 의제가 증가했다. 의제 프레임에 있어서는 책임귀인 프레임이 가장 많았다. 보수지인 <조선일보>는 인간적 흥미프레임을, <중앙일보>는 도덕적 평가 프레임을, <경향신문>은 책임귀인 프레임을, 그리고 <한겨레>는 경제적 결과 프레임을 타 신문사보다 더 많이 사용했다. 또한 정부 초기에는 책임 귀인 프레임이 주로 등장하다가, 정부 후반부로 가면서는 인간적 흥미 프레임이 더 빈번하게 등장했다. 의제 선택의 편향성, 정치의제의 과도한 편중, 그리고 의제의 정치적 편향성은 한국 신문 시사 칼럼의 한계로 지적되었다.

The purpose of this study is to examine how opinion columns in South Korea"s major daily newspapers construct social agendas based on constructionism, and to examine whether they adequately fulfill their social responsibility to provide diverse agendas for public discussion. To this end, we analyzed the main themes, subthemes, and framing of 1,729 content of representative columns written by internal and external writers of newspapers published on the opinion pages of 〈Kyunghyang Shinmun〉, 〈Chosun Ilbo〉,〈Joongang Ilbo〉, and〈Hankyoreh〉over the 28 years of six administrations from 1993 to 2021, categorized by newspaper, government, government period, and ideology of the newspaper and government. The analysis showed that Korean newspaper opinion columns cover political agendas the most, and among them, they are biased toward the presidential agenda, failing to provide a diverse agenda for the public sphere. Still, interms of detailed agenda, the presidential, economic crisis, social conflict, pop culture, history, and science agendas tended to decrease. In contrast, party politics, health and welfare, and social security agendas tended to increase. When looking at agendas by government, we found that political agendas tended to be covered more during the Kim Young-sam administration, economic agendas during the Kim Dae-jung administration, and social agendas during the Moon Jae-in administration compared to other administrations. Culture-related agendas increased significantly during the Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Myung-bak, and Moon Jae-in administrations compared to other periods. While the differences in agenda by the government were not statistically significant, there were significant differences in the details of the agenda. Conservative newspaper columns focused more on the political agenda, while liberal newspaper opinion columns focused more on the social agenda. Also, the presidential agenda, which was more prevalent in the early years of the government, decreased toward the end of the government, while the party"s political agenda increased. Regarding issue framing, the responsibility frame was the most common, and the framing of major daily newspapers" columns differed depending on the newspaper, government, and period. Specifically, Korean newspapers constructed their issue framing differentially through two axes of their political ideologies and reflection of social reality. The conservative Chosun Ilbo used the human interest frame, the JoongAng Ilbo used the moral evaluation frame, the Kyungyang Shinmun used the responsibility attribution frame, and the Hankyoreh used the economic consequences frame more than other newspapers. In addition, while the attribution of responsibility frame predominated in the early years of the government, the human interest frame appeared more frequently in the second half of the government. This demonstrates the tendency of the so-called "press-government parallelism," where media coverage operates in accordance with the government"s ideology. These results indicate that South Korean current affairs columns are failing to reflect the diversity of issues in the public sphere. We suggest that Korean newspapers should select a diverse range of issues in the process of constructing column issues and avoid excessively highlighting political issues. It is necessary to avoid the bias of issues and perspectives that can make them appear like political instigators.