English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 50995054      Online Users : 874
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
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143849


    Title: 消息來源與媒體認知差距:進口美國豬肉新聞產製分析
    The News Analysis of Importing US Pork with Ractopamine: Cognitive Gap Between Attribution of Source and Media
    Authors: 楊凱棻
    Yang, Kai-Fen
    Contributors: 鄭自隆
    Cheng, Tzu-Leong
    楊凱棻
    Yang, Kai-Fen
    Keywords: 美國豬肉進口
    意識形態
    新聞價值
    風險溝通
    消息來源
    Attribution of source
    Import US pork
    Ideology
    News value
    Risk communication
    Date: 2023
    Issue Date: 2023-03-09 18:40:24 (UTC+8)
    Abstract:   本研究係以2020年台灣政府宣布開放進口可能含有萊克多巴胺瘦肉精的美國豬肉為個案,探討分屬不同立場消息來源(中央、地方政府)、不同立場媒體(《聯合報》、《中國時報》及《自由時報》)之新聞稿與報導,在意識形態、風險溝通與新聞價值之差異。

      研究方法採文本分析,分析主題為「中央政府訂定萊克多巴胺安全容許值」、「中央及地方因應進口措施」、「進口衝擊保護豬農權益」、及「美國豬肉禁入校園」等四項議題。研究結果發現—

      意識形態為主導報導取向的主要元素,以工具性、階級性、相對獨立性為切入點,來處理新聞稿或報導,媒體與消息來源的互動為部分重疊模式或完全重疊模式,似乎呈現扈從與依附關係。而風險溝通與新聞價值的考量,無論消息來源或媒體在新聞稿或報導的處理均無差異。

      從研究發現,事件客觀存在為社會真實(social reality),但消息來源會以意識形態來形塑新聞稿,並以之提供媒體,媒體再以扈從消息來源的意識形態價值,作為守門(gatekeeping)基準來型塑媒介真實(media reality),民眾則會以自己的需求,形成選擇性理解(selective perception)以建構主觀真實(subjective reality),2021年12月18日舉行的反萊豬公投數據就是民眾主觀真實的呈現。
      This study is based on the Taiwan government’s announcement in 2020 to open the import of American pork that may contain ractopamine as a case, and explores the sources of information (central government, local government) and media ("United Daily News", "China Times", and "Liberty Times") press releases and reports, the difference in ideology, risk communication and news value.  The research method adopts textual analysis, and the analysis topics are "The central government sets the safe allowable standard of ractopamine", "The central and local response to import measures", "Import shock protects the rights and interests of pig farmers", and "American pork is prohibited from entering schools".
      The study found that ideology is the main element of the dominant reporting orientation, and the tool, class, and relative independence are the entry points to deal with press releases or reports. The interaction between the media and the sources of information is partial or complete overlap, which seems to show a relationship of subordination and dependence. There is no difference between risk communication and the consideration of news value, regardless of the processing of news releases or reports by news sources or media.
      It is found from the research that the objective existence of events is social reality, but the news source will shape the press release with ideology and provide the media with it. The media will shape the media reality with the ideological value of following the news source as the gatekeeping benchmark, and the people will shape the media reality with their own needs, To form selective perception to construct subjective reality, the data of the anti American pork referendum held on December 18, 2021 is the presentation of people`s subjective reality.
    Reference: 華文:
    王洪鈞(1992)。《新聞採訪學》。台北市:正中書局。
    李美華(2017)。〈台灣報業媒體網路平台氣候變遷風險溝通:2009~2016 年的歷時性分析〉,《中華傳播學刊》,32:45-90。
    李美華、林照真、黃靜蓉(2010)。《從全球暖化新聞的產製過程管窺科普傳播在台灣的樣貌》。(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC97-2515-S009-009-MY3)。新竹縣:國立交通大學傳播研究所。
    吳宜蓁(2005)。《危機傳播:公共關係與語藝觀點》。台北市:五南。
    周桂田(2012)。〈全球在地化風險下之風險溝通與風險評估— 以 SARS 為 Case 分析〉,蔡甫昌、江宜樺(2012)(編)。《疾病與社會: 台灣歷經 SARS 風暴之醫學與人文反省》。台北市:國立台灣大學醫學院。
    林麗雲(2000)。〈台灣威權政體下「侍從報業」的矛盾與轉型〉,張笠雲(編)《文化產業:文化生產的結構分析》,頁 89-148。台北市:遠流。
    林麗雲(2008)。〈變遷與挑戰:解禁後的台灣報業〉。新聞學研究,95,183-212。
    https://doi.org/10.30386/MCR.200804_(95).0005
    周桂田、徐建銘(2015)。《從土地到餐桌上的恐慌:揭露與理解我們的食品安全到底哪裡出了錯》。台北市:商周出版。
    邱玉蟬、游絲涵(2016)。〈食品安全事件的風險建構與溝通:新聞媒體 VS. 政府〉。《中華傳播學刊》,30:179-220。
    徐佳士(1966),《大眾傳播理論》,台北:記者公會。
    翁秀琪(1996),《大眾傳播理論與實證》,台北:三民書局。
    殷海光(2013)。《思想與方法(全新修訂版)》(三版),台北:水牛文化。
    韋恩‧旺塔、黃懿慧(2017)。〈新媒體環境下的經典傳播理論〉。《傳播與社會學刊》,42:1-22。
    徐美苓(2005),〈新聞乎?廣告乎?醫療風險資訊的媒體再現與反思〉,《新聞學研究》,83:83-125。
    徐美苓、楊意菁(2011)。〈臺灣全球暖化風險溝通的公眾認知〉,《傳播與社會學刊》,15:71-104。
    游美惠(2000)。〈內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用〉,《調查研究》,8:5-42。
    陳東園(2007)。〈媒介形式下的新聞價值差〉,《空大人服務電子報》,取自 http://enews.open2u.com.tw/~noupd/book_up/4917/(388)085.pdf
    陳憶寧(2011)。〈美國牛肉進口台灣危機中的媒介使用、政治信任與風險感知的關係〉。《傳播與社會學刊》, 17:31-60。
    陳思穎、吳宜蓁(2007)。〈食品污染新聞報導內容與品質之研究-以2005年「戴奧辛鴨蛋」與「孔雀石綠石斑魚」為例〉。《台灣公共衛生雜誌》,26(1):49-57。
    張依依、封國晨(2008)。〈從「反貪腐倒扁運動」檢視其框架策略與議題建構〉。《傳播與社會學刊》,5:101-127。
    張郁敏(2013)。〈什麼樣的科學新聞內容會受新聞媒體青睞?報紙與電視科學新聞媒體顯著性之決定因素初探〉。《新聞學研究》, 117:47-88
    張馨方(2015)。《媒體在食品安全事件中的風險傳播:以食用油報導為
    例》。〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學新聞研究所。
    張家慧、陳炳全(2002)。〈從解題過程看不同媒介特性對新聞編輯人員之影響—比較傳統媒介及網路媒體〉。《傳播與管理研究 》,1(2):189-211。
    許耀明、譚偉恩(2017)。〈風險溝通在食安管理中之必要性:以狂牛症事件為例〉。《交大法學評論》,1:1-33。
    黃惠萍(2005)。〈審議式民主的公共新聞想像:建構審議公共議題的新聞報導模式〉。《新聞學研究》。83:39-81。
    黃順星(2010)。〈新聞的場域分析:戰後台灣報業的變遷〉。《新聞學研究》,104:113-160。
    黃元鵬、吳佳綺(譯)(2013)。《媒介、文化與社會》。新北市:韋伯文化。(Paul Hodkinson, 2010)
    黃聖文(2022)。《報紙社論意識形態分析:COVID-19疫情下的媒體立場》。〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學新聞研究所。
    楊志弘(1994)。〈台灣地區傳播者研究之探討〉,《民意研究季刊》,189:67-97。
    楊志弘(1998)。《台灣地區報社編輯部主管人格特質與 編輯部組織文化、管理型態之研究》。(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC87-2412-H130-001)。台北市:銘傳大學傳播管理研究所。
    鄭自隆(2013)。《公共關係:策略與管理》。新北市:前程文化。
    鄭自隆(2015)。《傳播研究與效果評估》。台北市:五南書局。
    鄭自隆(2021)。《數位整合行銷傳播》,頁 236-264。台中市:滄海。
    鄭自隆(2022)。《倒立看《金剛經》:社會科學的解析》。台北市:印刻。
    臧國仁(1994)。〈新聞媒體與消息來源的互動關係-系統理論的觀點〉。《國家科學委員會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學》,2:264-284。
    臧國仁(1998)。〈消息來源組織與媒介真實的建構——組織文化與組織框架的觀點〉。《廣告學研究》,11:69-116。
    臧國仁(1999),《新聞媒體與消息來源:媒介框架與真實》,台北市:三民。
    蕭怡靖(2006),〈臺灣閱報民眾的人口結構及政治態度之變遷-1992至2004年〉。《臺灣民主季刊》,3(4):37-70。
    蘇蘅 (1995)。〈消息來源與新聞價值-報紙如何報導「許歷農退黨」效應〉。《新聞學研究》, 50:15-40。
    蘇蘅(2019)。《傳播研究方法新論》,台北市:雙葉書廊。
    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。
    蘇鑰機 (2011)。〈什麼是新聞?〉。《傳播研究與實踐》,(1)1:1-24。
    劉蕙苓(2011)。《新聞,多少錢?!:探索置入性行銷對電視新聞的影響》,台北市:巨流圖書。
    顧忠華 (1994)。〈「風險社會」的概念及其理論意涵〉,《國立政治大學學報》,69:57-79。
    行政院農業委員會(2021)。【中華民國109 年11月底養豬頭數調查報告】。未出版之統計數據。
    民視(2018)。【民視公司 2018 年第六次新聞自律諮詢委員會會議紀錄】。取自https://www.ftv.com.tw/committee/meeting/201806.pdf。

    英文:
    Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2017). The Discourse of News Values : How News Organizations Create Newsworthiness .Oxford University Press.
    Benoit, W. L. (1995). Sears’ repair of its Auto Service Image: Image Restoration Discourse in the Corporate Sector, Communication Studies, 46, 89-105.
    Bell, A (1991). The Language Of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Breed, W. (1955). Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis, Social Forces, 33(4), 326-335
    D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133-56.
    Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: sage.
    Eijndhoven, J. V. (1991). Risk Communication: The Need for a Broader Perspective, Communication Risks to the Public, 393 (Roger E. Kasperson & Pieter Jan M. Stallen eds., 1991).
    European Food Information Council.(2017) How to talk about food risk? A handbook for professionals. European Union: Author.
    Eisenstadt, & Roniger, L. (1980). Patron—Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(1), 42–77.
    Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The  presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers,  Journal of International Peace Research , 64-91.
    Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.
    Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what`s news: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Pantheon.
    Gieber, W., & Johnson, W. (1961). The City Hall “Beat”: A Study of Reporter and Source Roles. Journalism Quarterly, 38(3), 289-297.
    Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1998). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.
    Habermas, J. (1992; 1964) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Harcup, T. & O`Neill, D. (2001). What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism  Studies, 2(2). 261-280.
    Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1998; 1988). Manufacturing Consent: The political economy of the mass media. London:Vintage.
    Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523.
    Kenny,K. C.,& Simpson. (1993). Was Coverage of the 1988 Presidential Race by Washington`s Two Major Dailies Biased? Journalism Quarterly ,70 (2). 345-355.
    Kracauer, S.(1952; 1953). The challenge of qualitative content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(4): 631-642.
    Kurt,L. (1947). Frontiers Group Dynamics. Human Relations. 1:145.
    Lang, G. E. & Lang, K. (1983). The battle for public opinion: The President, the press, and public opinion. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
    Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion, MacMillan, New York, USA.
    Liao, Kuang-Sheng (1980). Mass media and crisis communication in china: Chinese press reactions in the 1962 sino-indian border conflict. Communication Research, 7(1), 69-94.
    Schiffer , A. J.(2006). Assessing Partisan Bias in Political News:The Case(s) of Local Election Coverage. Political Communication, 23 (1), 23-29.
    Shan, L., Regan, Á., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., van der Sanden, M. C., Wall, P., & McConnon,Á. (2013). Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science, 0(0), 1-18.
    Singer, E. & Endreny, P. (1987). Reporting hazards: Their benefits and costs. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 10-26.
    Maier, S. R. (2005). Accuracy matters: A cross-market assessment of newspaper error and credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 82(3), 533-551.
    McQuail, D., Blumler, J. and Brown, J. (1972) ."The television audience: a revised
    perspective’,in D. McQuail (ed.), Sociology of Mass Communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    McQuail, D. (1983). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction 1st Edition, Sage
    Publications, Inc.
    McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
    McQuail, D. & Windahl S. (1995). Communication Models. New York: Longman, 162-164.
    McNair, B. (1998). The Sociology of Journalism. New York, NY: Arnold.
    Sachsman, D. (1976). Public relations influence on coverage of environment in San Francisco area. Journalism Quarterly, 53(1), 54-60.
    Salwen, M. B. (1995). News of Hurricane Andrew: The agenda sources and the sources’ agendas. Journalism Quarterly, 72, 826-840.
    Sandman P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
    Sandman, P. M. (2003). Four Kinds of Risk Communication. The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website. Retrieved from http://www.psandman.com/col/4kind-1.htm
    Schlesinger, P. (1990). Rethinking the sociology of journalism: Source strategies and the limits of media-centrism. In Ferguson, M. (ed.), Public Communication: The New Imperatives (pp. 61-83). London, Sage.
    Scheufele, D. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(4), 13585-13592.
    Schanne, M., & Werner, M. (1992). Media coverage: Results from content analyses. In J. Durant (ed.), Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research (pp. 169-201). London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology.
    Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
    Stoney C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? mapping the conceptual terrain, Journal of Management Studies. 38(5). 603-604.
    Shan, L., Regan, A., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., van der Sanden, M. C., Wall, P., & McConnon, A. (2014). Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 23(8), 911-928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472315
    Shoemaker, J., & Reese, D. (1991, 1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. New York, NY: Longman.
    Shoemaker, J., & Cohen, A. (2006). News around the world: Content, practitioners, and the public. New York & London: Routledge.
    Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Persensky, J., Browde, S., & Szabo, A. (2004). Effective risk communication: the nuclear regulatory commission`s guidelines for external risk communication, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1-70.
    Taig, T. (1999). Risk communication in government and the private sector: Wider observations. In P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health. (pp. 222-228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Turow, J. (1984). Mass media industries. London: Constable.
    Temmerman, & Mast, J. (2021). Introduction: News Values from an Audience Perspective. In: Temmerman, M., Mast, J. (Eds), News Values from an Audience Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45046-5_1
    Weaver, D. & Elliot, S. N. (1986). Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of local agenda building. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 87-94.
    Williams, A. (1975). Unbiased study of television news bias. Journal of Communication, 25(4),190–199.
    Wilhelms, A., & Reyna, F. (2013). Effective ways to communicate risk and benefit. The virtual mentor : VM, 15(1), 34-41. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.1.stas1-1301
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
    108464044
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108464044
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    404401.pdf3757KbAdobe PDF2153View/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