政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/134221
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51577269      Online Users : 935
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/140.119/134221


    Title: WHO與台灣CDC在新冠肺炎公關稿之主題框架及風險訊息差異之研究
    The Difference of News Releases between WHO and Taiwan’s CDC on Issues Frames and Risks during the COVID-19 Crisis
    Authors: 許悅
    Yue, Hsu
    Contributors: 陳憶寧
    許悅
    Hsu Yue
    Keywords: 新冠肺炎
    公關稿
    框架理論
    風險訊息
    風險傳播
    COVID-19
    CDC
    WHO
    News releases
    Framimg
    Risk communication
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-03-02 15:00:43 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究以2019年底爆發全球大流行的傳染病－新型冠狀肺炎為案例，分析台灣衛福部疾病管制署以及世界衛生組織有關新冠肺炎的公關稿，探討兩者如何呈現新冠肺炎的疫病情形、防疫政策等相關訊息，以及兩方如何表現中國在此事件中扮演的角色並比較不同之處。本研究旨在探討在新興傳染病的風險事件中，不同的國家與組織在同一健康議題的內容陳述和訊息提供上，是否會有所不同，研究主要以框架及風險訊息取徑，進行內容分析。
    本研究選擇新冠肺炎爆發2019年12月31日至2020年6月7日作為分析期間，共搜集421則公關稿，CDC有356則、WHO有65則。研究結果發現：1. 新冠肺炎公關稿以行動框架和情境框架為主，CDC以行動框架的公關稿最多，WHO則為情境框架的比例最高。2. 新冠肺炎公關稿訊息脈絡會因組織目的不同而有差異，台灣CDC以風險訊息為主，而WHO以預防訊息為主。3. 台灣CDC新冠肺炎公關稿風險因子乘載量較WHO高。4. CDC與WHO新冠肺炎公關稿中的中國立場與角色明顯不同，
    CDC在呈現中國資訊時多以危機的形式或是容易引起讀者負面情緒的風險訊息來為主；相反，WHO以預防訊息較為正面的字詞或語句來陳述關於中國新冠肺炎的資訊，也對中國的防疫作為給予肯定和鼓勵。
    最後，建議台灣CDC在新冠肺炎公關稿中多增加疾病的病理知識，讓閱聽眾了解傳染病的病因及感染原理，並對專有名詞進行解釋；而WHO建議多增加風險因子方面的資訊，包含世界各地的疫情狀況、疫情朝向哪裡發展、新冠病毒的感染方式等，讓世界各地的閱聽眾能了解新冠肺炎所帶來的風險有哪些，進一步做出防範措施，達到共同防禦的目的。
    This study takes the COVID-19, an infectious disease that broke out in the global pandemic at the end of 2019, as a case, analyzes the news releases of Taiwan Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 Crisis, and explores how the two present the epidemic situation and prevention Policies and other related information, as well as how the two parties expressed China`s character in this incident and compared the differences. This research aims to explore whether different countries and organizations have different content statements and information provided on the same health topic in the risk events of emerging infectious diseases. The research mainly uses framing theory and risk communication to analyze content.
    This study selected the outbreak of COVID-19 from December 31, 2019, to June 7, 2020, as the analysis period. A total of 421 news releases were collected, including 356 from the CDC and 65 from the WHO. The results of the study found that: 1. COVID-19 news releases are mainly based on the framing of action and framing of situation. CDC has the most news releases based on the framing of action, and WHO has the highest proportion of framing of situation. 2. The message line of the COVID-19 news releases will depend on the organization`s purpose. Taiwan`s CDC focuses on risk messages, while WHO focuses on prevention messages. 3. Taiwan`s CDC COVID-19 news releases have a higher risk factor load than WHO. 4. The position and character of China in the CDC and WHO`s news releases are different. When CDC presents China information, it mainly uses crisis information or risk information that is likely to cause negative emotions among readers. On the contrary, WHO focuses on prevention information. Positive words or sentences to state information about China`s situation, but also to affirm and encourage China`s epidemic prevention efforts.
    Finally, it is recommended that Taiwan`s CDC add more knowledge about the pathology of the disease in the COVID-19 news so that the audience can understand the etiology and principles of infection, and explain the proper terms; and the WHO recommends more information on risk factors, including the situation of the epidemic around the world, where the epidemic is heading, and the way the new virus is infected so that audiences around the world can understand the risks and take further preventive measures to achieve the purpose of common defense.
    Reference: 中文部分

    王石番（1992）。《傳播內容分析法》。台北：幼獅文化事業公司。
    何青峰、林鶴玲、鄭芳芳（2003）。〈媒體新聞處理失當範例〉，《SARS媒體觀察》。
    吳宜蓁（2000）。〈危機溝通策略與媒體效能之模式建構—關於腸病毒風暴的個案研究〉，《新聞學研究》，62: 1-34。
    吳宜蓁（2002）。《危機傳播－公共關係與語意觀點的理論與實證》。台北：五南。
    吳承翰、林調遜、朱永強，〈WHO表現荒腔走板　陳時中：政治、疫情綁一起是世界災難〉，Nownews 今日新聞，上網日期109年3月24日，檢自：https://www.nownews.com/news/3902599
    李玉梅（2003）。〈記者面對新興傳染病的報導經驗─以SARS新聞為例〉國立政治大學傳播碩士在職專班碩士論文。
    林永崇（2003）。〈台灣SARS疫情事件中媒體的商業倫理〉，《應用倫理研究通訊》，28：20-24。
    林孝萱，〈政治角力？WHO：新型肺炎「不構成」國際公衛緊急事件〉，Nownews 今日新聞，上網日期109年3月24日，檢自：https://www.nownews.com/news/3902599
    姜采蘋（2009）。〈新聞報導和公關稿之主題框架及風險訊息差異：以腸病毒為例〉國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。
    徐美苓（2001）。《愛滋病與媒體》。台北：巨流。
    徐美苓、丁志音（2004）。〈小病微恙的真實再現-以[感冒]的新聞論述為例.〉，《新聞學研究》，79：197–242。
    徐美苓、黃淑貞（1998）。〈愛滋病新聞報導內容之分析〉，《新聞學研究》，56: 237-268。
    張錦華（2003）。〈從多元文化論觀點檢視新聞採寫教科書---以原住民族群相關報導為例〉，《新聞學研究》，76。
    陳潔，〈【肺炎疫情關鍵問答】科學解惑：10個「為什麼」，看懂COVID-19病毒特性與防疫策略〉，報導者，上網日期109年3月24日，檢自：https://www.twreporter.org/a/covid-19-ten-facts-ver-2
    楊國樞等編（1989）。《社會及行為科學研究法》。台北：東華。
    臧國仁（1999）。《新聞媒體與消息來源----媒介框架與真實建構之論述》。台北：三民書局。
    臧國仁、鍾蔚文（1997）。〈框架概念與公共關係策略----有關運用媒介框架的探析〉，《廣告學研究》，9：99-130。
    臧國仁、鍾蔚文（2000）。〈災難事件與媒體報導：相關研究簡述〉，《新文學研究》，62：143-151。
    瞿海源、章英華（2003）。〈SARS社會情勢調查報告〉，發表於「後煞時代風險治理與社會重建」研討會。台北：行政院青年輔導委員會。
    羅文輝（1995）。〈新聞記者選擇消息來源的偏向〉，《新聞學研究》，50：1-13。
    蘇蘅、陳憶寧（2010）。〈公共衛生危機中政府與媒體如何共舞：檢視產生不實新聞的影響因素〉，《廣告學研究》，33：1-38。

    英文部分

    Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
    Berry, T R., & Higgins, J., & Naylor, P. J. (2007). SARS wars: An examination of the quantity and construction of health information in the news media. Health Communication, 21(1), 35-44.
    Caldwell, N. & Sood, R. (1979). An analysis of Indian press coverage of the Andhra Pradesh cyclone disaster of 19, November 1977. Disaster, 3, 154-168.
    Cameron, G. T. (1997). Public relations and the production of news: A critical review and theoretical framework. In B. R. Burleson (ed.), Communication Yearbook 20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel, et al. “Message Analyses about Vaccines in the Print Press, Television and Radio: Characteristics and Gaps in Previous Research.” Journal of Communication in Healthcare, vol. 12, no. 2, 3 Apr. 2019, pp. 86–101.
    Chung, Wei-Wen & Tsang, Kuo-Jen. (1993). News frame reconsidered: What does frame do to reality. Paper presented at the AEJMC Convention, Kansas City, MO.
    Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
    Freimuth, V. S., Greenberg, R. H., DeWitt, J., & Romano, R. M. (1984). Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of Communication, 34(1), 62-73.
    Gandy, O. H. Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, H.: Ablex.
    Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY et al.: Harper & Row.
    Hallahan, Ki. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implication for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-42.
    Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risks. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
    Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
    Lerbinger, O. (1997). The Crisis Manager. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
    Lichtenberg, J. & MacLean, D. (1991). The role of the media in risk communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Communication Risks to the Public. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Lipcus, I. M., Crawford, Y., Fenn, K., BiradaVolu, M., Binder, R. A., & Marcus, A. (1999). Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risks. Journal of Health Communication, 4(4), 311-324.
    Lundgren, R. E. & McMakin, A. H. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
    Martin, W. P. & Slingletary, M. (1981). Newspaper treatment of stage government release. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 93-96.
    Mazur, A. (1981). Newspaper treatment of state government releases. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 93-96.
    Mebane F, Temin S, Parvanta CF. (2003).Communicating anthrax in 2001: a comparison of CDC information and print media accounts. Journal of Health Commun, 8(l), 50-82.
    Milio, N. (1988). “Political” information is essential. World Health Forum, 9, 501-504.
    Rothman, A. J. & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
    Rothman, A. J. & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
    Sachsman, D. B. (1976). Public relations influence on coverage of environment in San Francisco. Journalism Quarterly, 53(1), 54-60.
    Shoemaker, P. & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman.
    Simpkins, J. D., & Brenner, D. J. (1984). Mass media communication and health. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 275-297). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and risk propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1573-1592.
    Smith, C. (1993). News sources power elites in news coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journalism Quarterly, 70(2), 393-403.
    Tankard, J.W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese, O.H. Gandy & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspective on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Tankard, J.W., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S. (1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the AEJMC conversation. Boston, August.
    Trench, B.(2008). Turning science communication inside-out. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench(Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (185-198), New York: Routledge.
    Turk, J. V. (1986). Information subsidies and media content: A study of public relations influence on the news. Journalism Monographs, 100, 1-29.
    Turk, J. V. (1986). Public Relations` Influence on the News. Newspaper Research Journal, 7(4), 15-27.
    Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
    Walters, L. M. & Walters, F. N. (1992). Environment of confidence: Daily newspaper use of press release. Public Research Review, 18(1), 31-46.
    Wilkins, L. (1985). Television and newspaper coverage of a blizzard: Is the message helplessness?, Newspaper Research Journal, 6(4), 51-65.
    Williams, K. & Miller, D (1995). AIDS news and news cultures. In J. Downing, A. Mohammadi & A. Sreberny-Mohammadi (Eds.), Questioning the Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
    107464009
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107464009
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100348
    Appears in Collections:[Master`s Program in Communication] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    400901.pdf2020KbAdobe PDF21106View/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