政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/154218

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/154218

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51585400 線上人數 : 887

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 傳播學院 > 國際傳播英語碩士學程 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/154218

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/154218

題名:	再探數位時代下的全球媒體系統：媒體自由與極化 Revisit Global Media Systems in the Digital Age: Media Freedom and Polarization
作者:	李晁安 Lee, Chao-An
貢獻者:	韓義興 Han, Yi-Hsing 李晁安 Lee, Chao-An
關鍵詞:	媒體自由媒體系統數位化新聞學全球比較 Media freedom Media systems Digitalization Journalism Global comparison
日期:	2024
上傳時間:	2024-11-01 11:29:59 (UTC+8)
摘要:	全球各國的媒體自由自從進入數位時代以來一直呈下降趨勢（UNESCO，2022；Maniou，2022；Repucci，2019）。然而，數位化的影響可能對不同媒體系統中媒體自由的不同組成部分和外在因素產生不同的影響。以往的研究提出了西方國家的四種媒體系統模型（Hallin & Mancini，2004；Maniou，2022），但這些模型因未考慮媒體自由、媒體環境的變化以及非西方國家的情況而備受爭議（Norris，2009；Huang，2003；Hardy，2008，2012；Curran，2011）。因此，本研究重新審視了Hallin和Mancini的理論，並將媒體系統的面向與媒體自由的五個組成部分和一個因素相結合，採用量化方法呈現「政府干預」、「立法權力」、「媒體專業化」、「媒體多元化」、「記者騷擾」五個媒體自由的組成部分以及「極化」因素在數位時代的趨勢。通過採用來自V-dem Project資料庫的二次數據分析，本研究檢驗現有媒體系統模型在全球範圍內的適用性，並加以探討各組成部分與極化之間的關係。研究結果顯示，原有的媒體系統理論在全球範圍內不適用且出現新的媒體系統模型，同時證明了媒體多元化和記者騷擾對極化的顯著正向影響，以及立法權力（隨時間減弱）和媒體專業化（隨時間增強）對極化的顯著負向影響。 Media freedom in countries around the world has been on a downward trend since media entered the digital age (UNESCO, 2022; Maniou, 2022; Repucci, 2019). The influence of digitalization, however, may have varied toward different components and factors of media freedom in different media systems around the world. Previous research presented four media system models of Western countries (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Maniou, 2022), while these models have been controversial for lacking the consideration of media freedom, the change in the media environment, and countries outside of the Western world. (Norris, 2009; Huang, 2003; Hardy, 2008, 2012; Curran, 2011). Thus, this research revisited Hallin and Mancini’s theory and connected the dimensions of media systems with the five components and one factor of media freedom and employed quantitative approaches to present the trend of components such as government intervention, legislative power, professionalization, media pluralism, harassment of journalists, and the factor such as polarization in the digital age. By adopting a secondary data analysis with data from the V-dem project, this study examined the applicability of the current media system models on the scale of global countries and also explored the relationship between each component and polarization. The findings presented the inapplicability of the original theory of media system on the global scale with the newly appeared models while proving the significantly positive effect each from media pluralism and harassment of journalists to polarization and the negative effect each from legislative power (weakened through time) and professionalization (stronger through time) to polarization.
參考文獻:	Aalberg, T., & Curran, J. (Eds.) (2012). How media inform democracy: A comparative approach. Routledge. Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. American Economic Review, 96, 720–736. Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). Towards a Comparative Framework for Political Communication Research. In J. G. Blumler & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), The Crisis of Public Communication (pp. 59-72). Routledge. (Original work published 1975) Bruggemann, M., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Humprecht, E., & Castro, L. (2014). Hallin and Mancini Revisited: Four Empirical Types of Western Media Systems. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1037–1065 Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. In R. A. Lind (Ed.), Produsing theory in a digital world: The intersection of audiences and production in contemporary theory (pp. 15-32). Peter Lang. Chalaby, J. (1996). Journalism as an Anglo-American invention: A comparison of the development of French and Anglo-American journalism. European Journal of Communication, 11(83), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323196011003002 Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Cornell, A., Fish, M. S., Gastaldi, L., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., Grahn, S., Hicken, A., Kinzelbach, K., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., Neundorf, A., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Rydén, O., von Römer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J., Sundström, A., Tzelgov, E., Uberti, L., Wang, Y.-t., Wig, T., & Ziblatt, D. (2023). V-Dem Codebook v13. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Curran, J. (2011). Questioning a new orthodoxy. In J. Curran (Ed.), Communication and society: Media and democracy (pp. 28-46). Routledge. Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Brink Lund, A., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy: A comparative study. European Journal of Communication, 24(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323108098943 David, K., & Berndt, H. (2018). 6G vision and requirements: Is there any need for beyond 5G? IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, 13(3), 72–80. Dawes, S. (2014). Press Freedom, Privacy and the Public Sphere. Journalism Studies, 15(1), 17-32. Dennis, E. E., & Merrill, J. C. (1991). Media Debates: Issues in Mass Communication. Addison-Wesley Longman. Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2015). 25 Years After Communism: Four Models of Media and Politics in Central and Eastern Europe. In B. Dobek-Ostrowska & M. Glowaski (Eds.), Democracy and Media in Central and Eastern Europe 25 Years On (pp. 11-44). Peter Lang. Fadnes, I., Krøvel, R., & Larsen, A. G. (2020). Conclusion. Researching self-censorship caused by inadequate safety of journalists. Causes, solutions and future research. In A. G. Larsen, I. Fadnes, & R. Krøvel (Eds.), Journalist safety and self-censorship (pp. 197–203). 1st ed. Massachusetts: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367810139 Githii, G. (1971). Press Freedom in Kenya. In O. Stokke (Ed.), Reporting Africa (pp. 57-65). The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Gross, P. (2002). Entangled Evolutions: Media and Democratization in Eastern Europe. John Hopkins University Press. Grundy, A. (2022, June 7). Internet Crushes Traditional Media: From Print to Digital. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from https://www.census.gov/america-counts/stories/internet-crushes-traditional-media-from-print-to-digital Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2012). Comparing media systems: A response to critics. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 207–220). London, England: Routledge. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2013). Comparing Media Systems Between Eastern and Western Europe. In P. Gross & K. Jakubowicz (Eds.), Media Transformations in the Post-Communist World: Eastern Europe’s Tortured Path to Change (pp. 15-32). Lexington Books. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2017). Ten years after comparing media systems: What have we learned? Political Communication, 34(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1233158 Hardy, J. (2008). Western media systems. Routledge. Hardy, J. (2012). Comparing Media Systems. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzch (Eds.), Handbook of Comparative Communication Research (pp. 185-206). Routledge. Hauben, R. (2004). The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Vision. The Amateur Computerist, 12(2). Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049 Holton, A. E., Bélair-Gagnon, V., Bossio, D., & Molyneux, L. (2021). Not their fault, but their problem: Organizational responses to the online harassment of journalists. Journalism Practice, 17(4), 859–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.1946417 Huang, C. (2003) Transitional media vs. normative theories: Schramm, Altschull, and China. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 444–459 Humphreys, P. (2012). A political scientist’s contribution to the comparative study of media systems in Europe: A response to Hallin and Mancini. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 141-158). Intellect. Humprecht, E., Herrero, L., Blassnig, S., Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2022). Media Systems in the Digital Age: An Empirical Comparison of 30 Countries. Journal of Communication, 72. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab054 Jung, J. Y. (2016). Social media, global communications, and the Arab Spring: Cross-level and cross-media story flows. In A. Douai & M. Ben Moussa (Eds.), Mediated identities and new journalism in the Arab world. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58141-9_2 Kantola, A., & Harju, A. A. (2021). Tackling the emotional toll together: How journalists address harassment with connective practices. Journalism, 24(3), 494–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211055293 Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., & Rana, N. P. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20, 531–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y Karppinen, K. (2020). Aspects and scope of media pluralism. In Rethinking media pluralism (pp. 83–102). Fordham University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823245154-006 Keen, A. (2008). The cult of the amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Kemp, S. (2017) Digital 2017: Global Overview Report. In Meltwater & We Are Social. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2017-global-digital-overview Kemp, S. (2020) Digital 2020: Global Overview Report. In Meltwater & We Are Social. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-global-digital-overview Kemp, S. (2021) Digital 2021: Global Overview Report. In Meltwater & We Are Social. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-global-overview-report Kemp, S. (2024). Digital 2024: Global Overview Report. In Meltwater & We Are Social. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report Kim, C., & Shin, W. (2022). Harassment of journalists and its aftermath: Anti-press violence, psychological suffering, and an internal chilling effect. Digital Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2034027 Klimkiewicz, B. (2008). Media pluralism in European media policy: Theoretical reflections and empirical evidence. In B. Klimkiewicz (Ed.), Media freedom and pluralism: Media policy challenges in the enlarged Europe (pp. 43-74). Central European University Press. Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2023). The complex relationship between media and political polarization: Understanding how the media can affectively (de)polarize citizens. International Journal of Communication, 17, 5207–5222. Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283-301. Liedke, J., & Wang, L. (2023, November 15). News Platform Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org Lowenstein, R. (1970). Press Freedom as a Political Indicator. In H. D. Fischer & J. C. Merrill (Eds.), International Communication, Media, Channels, Functions (pp. 129-142). Hastings House. Mancini, P. (2020). Comparing Media Systems and the Digital Age. International Journal of Communication, 14, 5761-5774 Manganelli, A., & Nicita, A. (2022). Regulating digital markets : the European approach. Springer. Maniou, T. A. (2022). The Dynamics of Influence on Press Freedom in Different Media Systems: A Comparative Study. Journalism Practice, 17(9), 1937–1961. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2030246 McCaffrey, R. (2019). Stoicism and courage as journalistic values: What early journalism textbooks taught about newsroom ethos. American Journalism, 36(2), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08821127.2019.1602443 McQuail, D. (2000a) Some reflections on the Western Bias of media theory. Asian Journal of Communication, 10(2), 1–13. McQuail, D. (2000b). Mass Communication Theory. Sage. Menke, M., & Seeger, C. (2024). Different media, different audiences, different harassment? How the journalist-audience relationship shapes experiences of harassment. Digital Journalism, 12(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2351524 Merrill, J. C. (1990). The Imperative of Freedom: A Philosophy of Journalistic Autonomy. University Press of America. Miller, K. C. (2021a). Hostility toward the press: A synthesis of terms, research, and future directions in examining harassment of journalists. Digital Journalism, 11(7), 1230–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1991824 Miller, K. C. (2021b). Harassment’s toll on democracy: The effects of harassment towards US journalists. Journalism Practice, 17(8), 1607–1626. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2008809 Norris, P. (2009). Comparative Political Communications: Common Frameworks or Babelian Confusion? Government and Opposition, 44(3), 321-340. Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-T., Medzihorsky, J., Krusell, J., & von Romer, J. (2020). The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-national and Cross-temporal Expert-coded Data. V-Dem Working Paper No. 21 (5th ed.). Varieties of Democracy Institute, University of Gothenburg. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Prior, M. (2007). Post broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. Radue, M. (2022). Comparing impacts on media freedom in Southeast Asia: Connotative context factors in Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand. Global Media and Communication, 18(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427665221097852 Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the Media 2019: A Downward Spiral. Freedom House. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/20192 Salvatore, A. (2011). Before (and after) the “Arab Spring”: From connectedness to mobilization in the public sphere. Oriente Moderno, 91(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1163/22138617-09101003 Scott, M., Bunce, M., Myers, M., & Fernandez, M. (2022). Whose media freedom is being defended? Norm contestation in international media freedom campaigns. Journal of Communication, 73. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac045 Seymour-Ure, C. (1974). The Political Impact of Mass Media. Constable. Siebert, F., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Šimunjak, M., & Menke, M. (2023). Workplace well-being and support systems in journalism: Comparative analysis of Germany and the United Kingdom. Journalism, 24(11), 2474–2492. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221115205 Soon, C., & Tan, T. H. (2016). The media freedom-credibility paradox. Media Asia, 43(3-4), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2016.1276315 Stromberg, D. (2004). Radio’s impact on public spending. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 189–221. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Tambini, D. (2021). A theory of media freedom. Journal of Media Law, 13(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.1992128 Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103-113. UNESCO. (2021). Journalism is a public good: World trends in freedom of expression and media development: Global report 2021/2022; Highlights. Paris: UNESCO UNESCO. (2022). World trends in freedom of expression and media development: 2021/2022 online report. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/world-trends-report Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001 Voltmer, K. (2008). Comparing media systems in new democracies: East meets South meets West. Central European Journal of Communication, 1(1), 23-40. Whyatt, J. (2021). Media freedom around the world. In D. Dimitrova (Ed.), Global journalism: Understanding world media systems (pp. 41-56). Rowman & Littlefield. Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 137-158. Yang, J., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., et al. (2016). Why are “others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 349-367. Yang, J., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., Iyengar, S., Jones, P. K., Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rhee, J. W., Rowe, D., Soroka, S., & Tiffen, R. (2016). Why are “others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12166 Yrjölä, S., Matinmikko-Blue, M., & Ahokangas, P. (2024). The evolution of mobile communications. In P. Ahokangas & A. Aagaard (Eds.), The changing world of mobile communications. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33191-6_2
描述:	碩士國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位學程(IMICS) 111461009
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111461009
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[國際傳播英語碩士學程] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
100901.pdf		2982Kb	Adobe PDF	0	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

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 © - 回饋