政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/130670
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51586223      Online Users : 664
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130670


    Title: 探討Facebook偽科學新聞的訊息來源與內容呈現方式之影響
    Exploring the Effects of Sources and Frames in Pseudoscience News on Facebook: An Experimental Study
    Authors: 許普堯
    Hsu, Pu-Yao
    Contributors: 鄭怡卉
    Cheng, I-Huei
    許普堯
    Hsu, Pu-Yao
    Keywords: 偽科學
    偽科學信念
    新聞可信度
    科學傳播
    Pseudoscience
    Pseudoscientific Beliefs
    Credibility
    Science Communication
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-07-01 14:06:39 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 偽科學泛指表象看似科學、實質卻不具備科學方法及證據的理論，其中健康醫療的偽科學不僅會造成錯誤認知，更有可能影響個人的健康行為，而今日社群平台上的相關資訊如何對大眾產生影響亦值得加以探討。因此本研究模擬Facebook的資訊介面，以2 × 3 之多因子實驗設計，探討健康相關主題的偽科學新聞之訊息來源（主流媒體/內容農場）與訊息呈現方式（科學性/個案敘事/控制組），對於新聞可信度與偽科學信念的影響。實驗結果發現，受眾對於主流媒體/內容農場兩種不同訊息來源的新聞所感知的可信度差異甚微，但不同訊息呈現操弄的結果則有所區別，科學性呈現方式、論述偽科學原理或理論的內容最易被採信，即受試者評價該類新聞有較高可信度，也較支持其偽科學信念，其次是個案描述的訊息呈現方式，雖然不如科學性包裝有說服力，相較於控制組仍有較高可信度。整體而言，本研究有助於了解偽科學新聞的呈現方式如何影響受眾的認知，也有利未來研究者繼續探索新媒體上偽科學內容的型態與可能的影響。
    This study is a 2 × 3 multi-factor experimental design to explore how the health-related news with two sources (mainstream media/content farm) and three message presentations (scientific/narrative/control group) affect the audience to evaluate the credibility of the news and beliefs of the pseudoscience. The result showed that the audience`s perception of the credibility of news from the mainstream media and content farm is slightly different. However, using different message presentation cause different credibility of news and beliefs of the pseudoscience. News with scientific manipulation shows the highest credibility and beliefs, the narrative is second, and the control group is the lowest. This result also means that the audience believes in the news with the detailed principle or theory of pseudoscience. The control group which neither explaining the principle and theory nor providing the exemplar shows the lowest credibility and belief by the audience. Overall, this study explores how the presentation of pseudoscience news affects the perception of the audience, and also continues to contribute future researchers to find the possible factor lead to pseudoscience content on new media.
    Reference: 一、中文文獻
    王貞懿（2011）。《從新聞中的偽科學報導看大學生的科學素養與媒體識讀能力》。政治大學廣告學研究所碩士論文。
    吳文龍（2008）。〈科學新聞傳播的發展與困難〉，《科學教育研究與發展季刊》，50: 21-34。
    李松濤（2017）。〈大學生對於科學研究資訊的閱讀表現探究：以網路科學新聞為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，32: 91-128。
    周樹華、閻岩（2015）。〈媒體可信度研究：起源，發展，機會和挑戰〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，33: 255–297。
    林基興（2000）。〈科學家的認知與責任──《難以置信──科學家探索神秘信息場》〉，《科學月刊》，31(8): 722-723。
    林淑梤、林煥祥（2019）。〈偽科學信念與科學素養的共存與抗衡─民眾參與科學和偽科學活動之探究〉，《教育科學研究期刊》，64(2): 69-97。
    林慶順（2018）。《餐桌上的偽科學：加州大學醫學院教授破解上百種健康謠言和深入人心的醫學迷思》。台北：一心文化。
    林慶順（2019）。《餐桌上的偽科學2：頂尖醫學期刊評審用科學證據解答50個最流行的健康迷思》。台北：一心文化。
    夏淑怡譯（2009）。《黑白假說──看穿偽科學的19個思考實驗》。台北：城邦文化。（原書：竹內薰 [2009].《白い仮説・黒い仮説：ニセカガクを見破る思考実験》。日本東京都：日本実業出版社）
    徐美苓（2015）。〈新興環境議題的媒體建構：以台灣替代能源新聞報導為例〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，32: 19-57。
    張松林、安寶明譯（1991）。《科學與偽科學》。台北市：久大。（原書：Radner, Daisie & Radner, Michael [1982]. Science and Unreason. California, CA: Wadsworth）
    莫季雍（2014）。〈科普、科傳與科學傳播的人才培育〉，《科學月刊》，45(3): 206。
    陳明聰、陳思涵（2016）。〈從參加促進者訓練談促進性溝通的爭議〉，《特殊教育季刊》，141: 1-10。
    陳筱宛譯（2010）。《別掉入思考的陷阱！》。台北市：商周出版。（原書：Kida, T. [2009]. Don`t believe everything you think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.）
    陳憶寧（2011）。〈當科學家與記者相遇：探討兩種專業對於科學新聞的看法差異〉，《中華傳播學刊》，19: 147-187。
    曾元珏（2014）。《台灣成年國民從事運勢與健康之偽科學行為模式的研究》。高雄師範大學科學教育暨環境教育研究所博士論文。
    黃俊儒（2006）。〈構思科技社會中的即時學習：以學生及專家對於科學新聞文本之理解差異為例〉，《科學教育學刊》，16(1): 105-124。
    黃俊儒（2014）。《別輕易相信！你必須知道的科學偽新聞》。台北：時報出版。
    黃俊儒（2016）。《新時代判讀力：教你一眼看穿科學新聞的真偽》。台北市：方寸文創。
    黃俊儒（2018）。《新生活判讀力：別讓科學偽新聞誤導你的人生》。台北市：方寸文創。
    黃俊儒、簡妙如（2006）。〈科學新聞文本的論述層次及結構分佈：構思另個科學傳播的起點〉，《新聞學研究》，86: 135-170。
    黃俊儒、簡妙如（2010）。〈以通識教育型塑公民社會：科學新聞識讀課程為例〉，《課程與教學》，20(1): 45-72。
    劉時君、蘇蘅（2017）。〈政治抗議事件中媒體的創新使用與實踐：以太陽花運動為例〉，《資訊社會研究》，33: 147-188。
    鄭宇君（2003）。〈從社會脈絡解析科學新聞的產製〉，《新聞學研究》，74: 121-146。
    鄭怡卉（2013）。〈新聞中的「偽科學」內容分析研究〉，《新聞學研究》，116: 47-90。
    謝瀛春（1992）。〈全國科技會議新聞之分析〉，《新聞學研究》，46: 131-147。
    鍾起惠（1997）。〈台灣記者在想什麼？1997台灣記者工作處境與價值觀調查〉，《目擊者雜誌》，1: 15-19。
    羅文輝、林文琪、牛隆光、蔡卓芬（2003）。〈媒介依賴與媒介使用對選擇新聞可信度的影響：五種媒介的比較〉，《新聞學研究》，74: 19-44。
    關尚仁（2014）。〈臺灣科學傳播的現況與挑戰〉，《科學月刊》，45(3): 186-193。

    二、英文文獻
    Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M., McKellips, S., Ryan, D. J., & Spiegelhoff, M. (2000). Testing the persuasiveness of evidence: Combining narrative and statistical forms. Communication Research Reports, 17(4), 331-336.
    Allum, N. (2010). What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific?. Science Communication, 33(3), 341-366.
    Barnett, M., Wagner, H., Gatling, A., Anderson, J., Houle, M., & Kafka, A. (2006). The Impact of Science Fiction Film on Student Understanding of Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 179-191.
    Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1970). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
    Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. (2008). Transportation and Transportability in the Cultivation of Genre-Consistent Attitudes and Estimates. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 508-529.
    Boster, F., Cameron, K., Campo, S., Liu, W., Lillie, J., Baker, E., & Yun, K. (2000). The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars. Communication Studies, 51(3), 296-306.
    Braverman, J. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35(5), 666-694.
    Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.
    Brewer, P. R. (2012). The Trappings of Science. Science Communication, 35(3), 311-333.
    Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21(1), 48-78.
    Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. (2003). Big science, little news: science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 7-24.
    Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media Credibility Reconsidered: Synergy Effects between On-Air and Online News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247-264.
    Burns, T. W., O`Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2016). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
    Chang, L., & Lemert, J. (1968). The Invisible Newsman and Other Factors in Media Competition. Journalism Quarterly, 45(3), 436-444.
    Chapman, S., Holding, S., McLeod, K., & Wakefield, M. (2005). Impact of news of celebrity illness on breast cancer screening: Kylie Minogue`s breast cancer diagnosis. Medical Journal of Australia, 183(5), 247-250.
    Dahlstrom, M. (2010). The Role of Causality in Information Acceptance in Narratives: An Example From Science Communication. Communication Research, 37(6), 857-875.
    Dahlstrom, M. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13614-13620.
    Dennis, E., & McCartney, J. (1979). Science Journalists on Metropolitan Dailies: Methods, Values and Perceptions of Their Work. The Journal of Environmental Education, 10(3), 9-15.
    Etling, L., & Young, R. (2007). Sexism and the Authoritativeness of Female Sportscasters. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 121-130.
    Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700.
    Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.
    Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
    Friedman, S. (1986). The journalist’s world. In Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York, NY: Free Press.
    Garrett, B. M., & Cutting, R. L. (2017). Magical beliefs and discriminating science from pseudoscience in undergraduate professional students. Heliyon, 3(11), e00433.
    Glaser, M., Garsoffky, B., & Schwan, S. (2009). Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems. Communications, 34(4). 429-447.
    Goodell, R. (1977). The Visible Scientists. The Sciences, 17(1), 6-9.
    Gordin, M. (2017). The problem with pseudoscience. EMBO Reports, 18(9), 1482-1485.
    Greenberg, B., & Roloff, M. (1974). Mass media credibility. Washington: American Newspaper Publishers Association.
    Greene, K., Campo, S., & Banerjee, S. (2010). Comparing Normative, Anecdotal, and Statistical Risk Evidence to Discourage Tanning Bed Use. Communication Quarterly, 58(2), 111-132.
    Grove, J. (1985). Rationality at risk: Science against pseudoscience. Minerva, 23(2), 216-240.
    Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1999). The Media and Public Understanding of Biotechnology. Science Communication, 20(4), 373-394.
    Gunther, A. (1988). Attitude Extremity and Trust in Media. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 279-287.
    Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the News: The Emergence of Ambient Journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297-308.
    Hinnant, A., Len-Rios, M. E., & Young, R. (2013). Journalistic Use of Exemplars to Humanize Health News. Journalism Studies, 14(4), 539-554.
    Hovland, C., & Weiss, W. (1951). The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
    Ismach, A., & Dennis, E. (1978). A Profile of Newspaper and Television Reporters in a Metropolitan Setting. Journalism Quarterly, 55(4), 739-898.
    Jahng, M. R., & Littau, J. (2016). Interacting Is Believing: Interactivity, Social Cue, and Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 38-58.
    Johnson, S. B., Park, H. S., Gross, C. P., & Yu, J. B. (2017). Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival. JNCI: Journal of The National Cancer Institute, 110(1), 121-124.
    Johnson, S. B., Park, H. S., Gross, C. P., & Yu, J. B. (2018). Complementary　Medicine, Refusal of Conventional Cancer Therapy, and Survival Among Patients With Curable Cancers. JAMA Oncol, 4(10), 1375-1381.
    Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is Believing?: Comparing Internet and Traditional Sources on Media Credibility Measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 325-340.
    Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs Among Blog Users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.
    Kim, H., Bigman, C., Leader, A., Lerman, C., & Cappella, J. (2012). Narrative Health Communication and Behavior Change: The Influence of Exemplars in the News on Intention to Quit Smoking. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 473-492.
    Kim, S., Weaver, D., & Willnat, L. (2000). Media Reporting and Perceived Credibility of Online Polls. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 846-864.
    Kiousis, S. (2001). Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age. Mass Communication and Society, 4(4), 381-403.
    Kumkale, G., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143-172.
    Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21(1), 51-67.
    Losh, S. C., & Nzekwe, B. (2011). The Influence of Education Major: How Diverse Preservice Teachers View Pseudoscience Topics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 579-591.
    Martin, F. (1990). News and Comment-science teachers confront pseudoscience. The Skeptical Inquirer, 15, 19-20.
    Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science & Education, 3(4), 357-371.
    McKinley, C., Limbu, Y., & Jayachandran, C. (2016). The Influence of Statistical versus Exemplar Appeals on Indian Adults’ Health Intentions: An Investigation of Direct Effects and Intervening Persuasion Processes. Health Communication, 32(4), 427-437.
    Mehrabi, D., Muhamad, S. S. A., & Hassan, M. A. (2013). Components of news media credibility among professional administrative staff in Malaysia. China Media Research, 9(1), 34-40.
    Metzger, M., Flanagin, A., Eyal, K., Lemus, D., & Mccann, R. (2003). Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment. Communication Yearbook, 27(1), 293-335.
    Metzger, M., Flanagin, A., Eyal, K., Lemus, D., & Mccann, R. (2003). Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment. Annals Of The International Communication Association, 27(1), 293-335.
    Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567-574.
    Millar, R. (1997). Science education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve?. London, UK: Routledge.
    Moore, K. (1999). Influence of text genre on adults` monitoring of understanding and recall. Educational Gerontology, 25(8), 691-710.
    Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion: Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425.
    Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science. New York: W.H. Freeman.
    Newhagen, J., & Nass, C. (1989). Differential Criteria for Evaluating Credibility of Newspapers and TV News. Journalism Quarterly, 66(2), 277-284.
    Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293-310.
    Reinard, J. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
    Schoijet, M. (2009). On Pseudoscience. Critique, 37(3), 425-439.
    Schweiger, W. (2000). Media Credibility — Experience or Image?. European Journal of Communication, 15(1), 37-59.
    Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
    Shermer, M. (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
    Shermer, M. (2003). Why smart people believe weird things. Skeptic, 10(2), 62-75.
    Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience?. Scientific American, 116(10), 122.
    Shermer, M. (2016). The Quack of the Gaps Problem. Scientific American, 315(2), 75.
    Slater, M., & Rouner, D. (1996). How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Belief Change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 974-991.
    Slater, M., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment? Education and Elaboration Likelihood: Understanding the Processing of Narrative Persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191.
    Sparks, G., Nelson, C., & Campbell, R. (1997). The relationship between exposure to televised messages about paranormal phenomena and paranormal beliefs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(3), 345-359.
    Sundar, S. (1998). Effect of Source Attribution on Perception of Online News Stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 55-68.
    Thagard, P. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of The Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association, 1978(1), 223-234.
    Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187-211.
    Tobacyk, J. (2004). A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94-98.
    Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 1029-1037.
    Treise, D., & Weigold, M. (2002). Advancing Science Communication. Science Communication, 23(3), 310-322.
    Tsai, C., Lin, C., Shih, W., & Wu, P. (2015). The effect of online argumentation upon students` pseudoscientific beliefs. Computers & Education, 80, 187-197.
    Tseng, Y.-C., Tsai, C.-Y., Hsieh, P.-Y., Hung, J.-F., & Huang, T.-C. (2013). The Relationship Between Exposure to Pseudoscientific Television Programmes and Pseudoscientific Beliefs among Taiwanese University Students. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(2), 107-122.
    Wallington, S., Blake, K., Taylor-Clark, K., & Viswanath, K. (2010). Antecedents to Agenda Setting and Framing in Health News: An Examination of Priority, Angle, Source, and Resource Usage from a National Survey of U.S. Health Reporters and Editors. Journal of Health Communication, 15(1), 76-94.
    Wanta, W., & Hu, Y. (1994). Time-lag Differences In The Agenda-setting Process: An Examination Of Five News Media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(3), 225-240.
    Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies? International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 363-372.
    Whitehead, J. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(1), 59-63.
    Worchel, S., Andreoli, V., & Eason, J. (1975). Is the Medium the Message? A Study of the Effects of Media, Communicator, and Message Characteristics on Attitude Change1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(2), 157-172.
    Yarden, A. (2009). Reading Scientific Texts: Adapting Primary Literature for Promoting Scientific Literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311.
    Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). LEA`s communication series. Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
     
    三、網路文獻
    孔德廉、柯皓翔、劉致昕、許家瑜（2019年12月26日）。〈打不死的內容農場──揭開「密訊」背後操盤手和中國因素〉，《報導者》。取自 https://www.twreporter.org/a/information-warfare-business-content-farm-mission
    余弦妙（2018年11月27日）。〈全球臉書使用者超過22億　台灣已逾1900萬人〉，《蘋果新聞網》。取自 https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20181127/1474251/
    邱宜君、楊惠君（2017年10月25日）。〈【許達夫案追蹤2-2】另類療法成為醫療三不管地帶〉，《報導者》。取自 https://www.twreporter.org/a/complementary-alternative-medicine-regulation
    國家通訊傳播委員會（2019年3月27日）。〈新聞稿〉。台北市：國家通訊傳播委員會。取自 https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=41223
    國家通訊傳播委員會（2019年3月28日）。〈新聞稿〉。台北市：國家通訊傳播委員會。取自 https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=41228
    國家通訊傳播委員會（2019年7月10日）。〈新聞稿〉。台北市：國家通訊傳播委員會。取自 https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=41651
    陳潔（2019年03月18日）。〈你的體質，不可能是酸的！戳破鹼性水、蚊子愛叮酸性人的五大迷思〉，《天下雜誌》。取自 https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5094367
    資策會（2016年12月15日）。〈2017年19歲以下網友潛藏巨大消費力量〉。取自 https://mic.iii.org.tw/news.aspx?id=449&List=1
    劉昌德、林麗雲、胡元輝、劉慧雯（2019）。〈網路新聞專業表現評鑑 每日新聞媒體臉書粉絲專頁評比之初探研究〉。取自台灣媒體觀察教育基金會網頁 http://www.mediawatch.org.tw/news/9826
    蔣曜宇（2019）。〈「LINE訊息查證」平台正式上線，聯手4大查核機構打擊假消息〉，《數位時代》。取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/54068/line-disinformation-examination
    顏正芳（2018年4月3日）。〈偽科學資訊流竄 侵蝕台人健康〉，《蘋果新聞網》。取自 https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20180403/1327474/
    蘇蘅（2015）。〈台灣新聞媒體公信力研究〉。取自台灣媒體觀察教育基金會網頁 http://www.mediawatch.org.tw/news/9282
    Callahan, A. (2018). Is Alkaline Water Really Better for You?. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/well/eat/alkaline-water-health-benefits.html
    Federal Trade Commission. (2016, November 15). FTC Issues Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Marketing Claims for Over-the-Counter Homeopathic Drugs. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/11/ftc-issues-enforcement-policy-statement-regarding-marketing
    Figueroa, T. (2018, November 2). Jury awards $105 million to terminal cancer patient in suit against `pH Miracle` author. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/la-me-ln-san-diego-ph-miracle-lawsuit-20181102-story.html
    French, C. (2019, March 11). Why Do People Believe in Pseudoscience?. Gizmodo. Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/why-do-people-believe-in-pseudoscience-1833193811
    Funk, C., Gottfried, J., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Science News and Information Today. Retrieved 28 August 2019 from Pew Research Center web site: https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/
    Hitlin, P., & Olmstead, K. (2018). The Science People See on Social Media. Retrieved 28 August 2019, from Pew Research Center web site: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/03/21/the-science-people-see-on-social-media/
    Lower, Stephen（2002）Pesudoscience-What is it? How can I recongize it? Retrieved from http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
    Mahdawi, A. (2018, October 29). Is alkaline water a miracle cure – or BS? The science is in. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/29/alkaline-water-cure-bs-science-beyonce-tom-brady
    Moore, D. (2005, JUNE 16). Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal. Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx
    National Health and Medical Research Council (2015). NHMRC Statement on Homeopathy (NHMRC ref #CAM02). Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/homeopathy
    National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006 (NSB 06-01). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind/
    Ngak, C. (2019, October 30). Social media a news source and tool during Superstorm Sandy. CBS NEWS. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-media-a-news-source-and-tool-during-superstorm-sandy/
    Ritschel, C. (2019, February 5). Health Articles Shared On Facebook Include False Information, Researchers Say. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fake-news-health-facebook-study-medicine-nutrition-fact-credibility-a8764436.html
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
    106464042
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106464042
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000456
    Appears in Collections:[Master`s Program in Communication] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    404201.pdf5064KbAdobe PDF2340View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback