"A Jury Made by the Public"
Tension and anticipation coexisted at the venue.
On August 18, 2025, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) — the national broadcast regulator — publicly announced the recruitment of a citizen jury.
A photo by reporter Jo Seong‑mi, taken in January 2024, captured part of that moment.
The announcement signaled a major shift in how the Broadcast Awards will be judged.
The recruitment notice says any South Korean national aged 19 or older may apply.
Candidates who pass a preliminary screening will join the jury to evaluate the finalists selected for the main round.
This procedure appears designed to move the contest away from expert‑only panels and toward direct public assessment.
Small Ripples, Big Change
The debate spread quickly.
For decades the Broadcast Awards were judged mainly by professional panels.
However, in recent years public distrust and calls for greater transparency have grown.
This shift may be more than a procedural tweak; it could call for broad social agreement about what makes judging legitimate.
Historically, the awards have been a respected ceremony recognizing outstanding programs and production teams.
Experts convened under the umbrella of the KCC-led review committee to assess technical and artistic merit.
Meanwhile, criticism mounted about closed evaluation processes and internal bias, which helped stir demands for wider public participation.
Why Introduce a Citizen Jury Now?
The question is natural.
There are several layers to the answer.
First, there is urgency to restore public trust in the institutions that evaluate broadcast work.
Second, political and social pressure is pushing for fairer, more transparent procedures.
Broadcasts are produced with public resources and viewer attention.
Therefore, involving citizens in the judging process is seen as a way to strengthen democratic legitimacy.
On the other hand, securing expertise and ensuring representative membership remain unresolved challenges.
Transparent Judging, More Open Broadcasting
Supporters make firm claims.
First, the idea of strengthening public sovereignty (the public's rightful say) carries persuasive weight.
It seems reasonable that citizens should have a voice about programming funded in part by public money or public interest.
Second, citizen juries are expected to provide evaluations free from internal institutional interests.
If the jury truly represents a range of ages, regions, and occupations, it could offset expert bias and produce winners that resonate with broader audiences.
Additionally, increased public participation may boost audience engagement and improve communication between viewers and creators.
In short, proponents argue that citizen evaluation can make award outcomes better aligned with popular taste and needs, while enhancing transparency and trust across the industry.
If well designed, expanded citizen involvement could also encourage qualitative improvements in content.
Shifting the Judging Paradigm
Critics, however, raise serious concerns.
First, they point to the practical problem of expertise.
Ordinary citizens may struggle to assess technical and artistic standards such as directing, cinematography, or editing — areas professionals study and evaluate deeply.
Second, critics warn about inconsistent standards.
If citizen juries and professional panels prioritize different things, results could become unpredictable and the awards' identity might blur.
This inconsistency could damage public confidence rather than strengthen it.
Third, representation matters.
If the recruitment process favors certain ages, regions, or social groups, the label "citizen jury" loses credibility.
Without institutional safeguards, the process could yield skewed outcomes.
These criticisms are not merely conservative resistance.
Concerns that artistic merit, creativity, and public interest might be sacrificed to popularity are concrete. Therefore, citizen juries require professional safeguards, strict operating rules, and transparent records to work well.
Deep Divide: Logic from Both Sides
Debate is likely to continue.
Supporters and opponents represent different values and priorities.
Supporters emphasize democratic participation and restored fairness, while opponents stress the need to preserve expertise and artistic standards.
Finding compromise will be the central practical challenge.
Supporters elaborate that broadcast content carries public value, so including citizens in the review process strengthens democratic legitimacy. Especially in 2025, with the rise of digital platforms and more active viewer participation, broadcasters risk losing popular support if they ignore audience voices. Moreover, a citizen jury offers external oversight that can reduce internal misconduct. If the jury is designed to cover diverse ages, regions, genders, and occupations, it can mitigate expert bias and help reach wider social agreement. For example, when a genre has low popularity but high public value, a mixed deliberation process between experts and citizens could reframe that work's contribution. Finally, active public participation can create feedback loops between audiences and creators, potentially raising content quality.
Opponents respond that expertise concerns are not simply rhetorical but practical. Broadcasting involves directing, camera work, editing, and planning; fair evaluation often requires genre‑specific criteria and technical understanding. Ordinary citizens cannot realistically master these details quickly enough to judge fairly. If citizen juries favor popularity or buzz, experimental or critical works risk exclusion — a pattern seen in past popularity contests that prioritized commercial appeal. Representation is another serious issue: online or regionally skewed recruitment can make one group's views appear to represent the whole. To prevent that, every stage — recruitment, selection, training, and judging — must be statistically and institutionally well designed. Finally, to ensure consistent outcomes, clear role divisions, weighting between professional and citizen scores, and standardized evaluation metrics are essential.
Operational Challenges and Practical Suggestions
Design and execution will determine success.
For the citizen jury to be effective, recruitment transparency, thorough training, and clear evaluation criteria are essential.
For example, mandatory pre‑judging training could explain genre‑specific points and evaluation rubrics, while joint sessions with experts might reduce blind spots.
Moreover, sampling methods, random selection, and regional quotas should be considered to secure diversity.
Keeping public records of scores and written reasons can enhance trust.
At the same time, society must reach consensus on how to weight expert and citizen input.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The conclusion is straightforward.
Introducing a citizen jury promises gains in fairness and transparency.
However, those gains can be undermined without measures to secure expertise and balanced representation.
Therefore, the KCC should publicly disclose every step of recruitment, selection, training, and scoring, and clearly allocate roles between experts and citizens.
Absent such safeguards, the new system risks eroding the very trust it aims to restore.
The takeaway is simple.
A citizen jury opens new possibilities, but only careful design and operation will reveal its strengths rather than its limits.
Do you think this change can preserve both the public character and the artistic quality of the Broadcast Awards?
The citizen jury is meant to bring public opinion into Broadcast Awards judging beginning in 2025. While it may strengthen transparency and fairness, critics note the need for professional safeguards and representative selection. For effectiveness, recruitment, training, and evaluation must be transparent and paired with collaboration between experts and citizens. Ultimately, this is a search for balance between popular legitimacy and artistic standards.
