플랫폼 의료광고의 혁신과 규제를 둘러싼 정책담론경쟁 분석: 비판적 담론 분석(CDA)으로 본 강남언니와 대한의사협회 갈등 사례를 중심으로

초록

This study analyzes the policy discourse competition surrounding the institutionalization of platform-based medical advertising, focusing on the conflict between Gangnam Unni and the Korean Medical Association (KMA). As digital platforms have expanded into professional service markets, conflicts between traditional professional regulatory regimes and emerging platform-based businesses have intensified. Medical advertising represents a particularly contested domain where professional ethics, consumer rights, patient safety, and industrial innovation intersect. Applying Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study conducted a three-dimensional analysis of text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice. Unlike previous studies that examined policy discourse competition in traditional regulatory domains with binary pro-con actor configurations, this study analyzed a multi-layered discourse dynamic involving four types of actors―the medical community, platform companies, government, and the media―across three distinct phases of conflict from 13 November 2020 to 29 May 2024. A total of 88 documents, including news articles, governmental materials, and official statements from medical associations and platform organizations, were analyzed. The analysis reveals three key findings. First, the core axis of conflict centered on competing definitions of the publicness of medical advertising. The KMA framed publicness in terms of professional ethics and patient safety, while platform actors emphasized legal consistency and information transparency, and economic media emphasized consumer welfare and innovation. Second, the dominant understanding of publicness shifted across phases from an ethics-based professional framework toward a consumer-centered and market-oriented perspective. In the legislative peak phase, regulatory legitimacy moved from professional norm-based legitimacy toward consumer benefits and industrial innovation. Third, despite the discursive dominance of regulatory reform and consumer welfare narratives, institutionalization failed to materialize. This outcome suggests that Korea’s professional regulatory policy is shaped not solely by discursive logic but also by sociopolitical factors such as the mobilization capacity of professional associations and electoral incentives. By demonstrating how policy discourse is constructed and contested in a complex professional regulatory domain, this study applies CDA to platform regulation debates. The findings reveal that the structural gap between discursive dominance and institutionalization is a critical variable in understanding platform regulation in Korea, where professional associations retain significant political leverage despite losing the battle of public discourse. This study also contributes to PR communication research by repositioning the communicative practices of key actors as sites of discursive competition, expanding its analytical scope into social conflict and policy-making. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for an integrated approach combining micro-level discourse analysis with macro-level sociopolitical context to achieve rational conflict mediation and institutional design in recurring clashes between professional service markets and emerging digital platforms.

키워드