學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 複合性風險事件之新聞框架對網路社群參與之影響—以815全台大停電為例
The effect of news framing on PTT participation in multiple risk event- take the Aug 15 blackout for example作者 林凱琳
Lin, Kai-Lin貢獻者 蘇蘅
Su, Herng
林凱琳
Lin, Kai-Lin關鍵詞 風險傳播
新聞框架
線上社群參與
PTT
Risk communication
News framing
Online public participation
PPT日期 2018 上傳時間 4-Jan-2019 17:19:40 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討複合性風險事件的傳播中，新聞框架對線上公眾參與的影響，透過815大停電事件的個案分析，藉以了解台灣不同的網路新聞媒體如何透過新聞框架傳播復合性風險以達到風險溝通，同時也從停電事件中，最多網友討論停電事件的PTT八卦板撈取主文及回文的資料，了解公眾轉貼哪些新聞網站的新聞作為風險消息的解讀依據。本研究使用意藍科技提供的Opview Insight資料庫系統撈取撈取台灣四大新聞網站的新聞，包含聯合報、自由時報、中時電子報、蘋果日報，以及PTT上的相關新聞的引用主文及回文，採用框架分析及樞紐分析法了解網路新聞媒體在事件不同階段的新聞框架及PTT網友轉貼、回應新聞的內容的屬性。研究結果顯示，不同的新聞網站對議題的關注趨勢存在差異，自由時報、中時電子報以15日為關注高峰；蘋果日報、聯合報、PTT則以16日為議題關注高峰。此外，在複合性風險事件的傳播上，相較於風險的種類，媒體及公眾更為在意的內容是未來發生事件的可能（增量）。媒體的角色亦隨事件發展而有所不同，第一階段為中介者的角色，主要為回報事件訊息，第二、三階段轉為詮釋與促發的角色。新聞框架的效果分析結果顯示，新聞框架在風險事件發生的3日內發揮影響力。新聞框架的多元性亦對討論串的長度和立場有所影響：其中單一框架新聞所引發的討論數量最多；無框架與單一框架新聞的中立/無立場討論串之比例較高，而多框架新聞的噓文比例較高。此研究結果給予複合性風險事件傳播實務上的建議，可作為未來危機公關處理、風險溝通的參考，若要減緩網友的負面聲浪，新聞框架不宜使用太多，但如果想引發網友熱烈討論，且討論立場非以負面立場討論，則適合使用單一框架的新聞。
This study aims to explore the effect of the construction of news and the impact of online public participation in multiple risk event. In order to understand the different directions of news framing, this study took Aug 15 power blackout as a case study to analyze the news coverage from the four major news websites in Taiwan and the PTT, which was the platform where the public shared and discussed the risk information.This research analyzed the news from United Daily News, Liberty Times, China Times, Apple Daily, and the news be shared on PTT by Excel PivotTable and Frame Analysis. The research results showed that different news websites had different attention trends on Aug 15 power blackout. Liberty Times and China Times published the most of the news happen from 15th, while Apple Daily, United Daily News, and PTT published the most news coverage happen from 16th. In addition, the media and the public are mostly concerned about the possibility of the risk happening in the future compared to the types of risks. The role of the media also varies with the development of the event. In the first period of Aug 15 power blackout, the role of the media was the intermediary, who was reporting the information of the event. While in the second and third periods, the role of the media was the interpreter.The study showed that the framing effect lasted for the first 3 days of the risk event. The diversity of the news frame also had an impact on the amount of the comments and the attitude of the comments, which single-frame news led to the most discussions. Besides, the diversity of frame had an impact on the position of comments, which the single and no frame news led to the higher proportion of neutral discussions. Multi-frame news has a higher percentage of dislikes.The results of this study gave practical advice on the dissemination of multiple risk events, which can be used as a reference for planning the strategy of public relations and risk communication. The results suggested that the fewer frames in the news, the less negative comments. The single frame led to the higher proportion of neutral comments.參考文獻 天下雜誌（2017年8月9日）。〈台灣為何陷入缺電風險？3個不願面對的真相〉，《天下雜誌》。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5084314中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈815全台大停電 原因影響各界反應一次看[更新]〉，《中央通訊社》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈台灣歷年限電大事記〉，《中央通訊社》。取自http://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/201708150392-1.aspx中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈815全台大停電 原因影響各界反應一次看[更新]〉，《中央通訊社》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282台灣網路資訊中心。2017。〈2017台灣寬頻網路使用調查〉。https://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/20170721e.pdf吳芳如（2002）。《消息來源、新聞框架與媒介真實之建構:以政黨輪替後之核 四爭議案為例》。世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。吳宜蓁（2005）。《危機傳播》。五南圖書出版。吳宜蓁（2011）。〈運用網路社交媒體於風險溝通 —— 以 2009 —2010年台灣政府H1N1防疫宣導為例〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，15:125-160。吳國華(2014)。〈危機傳播研究〉，洪浚浩(編)《傳播學新趨勢》， 頁 216-244。北京：華大學出版社。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。周桂田（2003）。〈從「全球化風險」到「全球在地化風險」之研究進路：對貝克理論的批判思考〉，《台灣社會學刊》，31：153-188。林照真（2013）。〈台灣電視新聞之災難報導：以「莫拉克」風災為例〉，《新聞學研究》，115:141-185。林潔玲（2017年7月30日）。〈颱風導致電塔倒塌 周四亮限電警戒紅燈〉，《經濟日報》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/7238/2613733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。陳憶寧（2002）。〈公共議題之遊戲框架初探:以核四議題為例〉，《新聞學研究》， 72:85-117。陳智傑（2011）。〈機構的風險責任與公共論述 —— 傳媒呈現香港滙豐控股負面消息的 個案研究〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，15:187-214。張春炎、楊樺、葉欣誠（2015）。〈自然災難與媒體建構:以 TVBS 新聞為例，重探八八風災新聞論述〉，《環境教育研究》，11: 1-30。黃懿慧（2011）。〈風險社會與危機傳播〉。《傳播與社會學刊》，15:27-32。黃上銓、林意仁、蕭煒馨、李紹良（2016）。《婉君妳好嗎？：給覺醒鄉民的PTT進化史》。台北：學群出版。楊意菁（2013）。〈網路意見的新聞再現與公眾想像:「網友說」新聞的內 容與論述分析〉，《中華傳播學刊》，24:119-164。楊意菁、徐美苓（2010）。〈風險社會概念下的風險溝通與網路傳播：以全球暖化議題為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，18:151-191。楊韶彧(1993)。《從消息來源途徑探討議題建構過程-以核四建廠爭議為例》。政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。趙于萱（2015）。〈風險爭議下的能源新聞框架分析—以《遠見》和《聯合報》的專題為例〉。廖鐿鈤（2001）。〈虛擬社區凝聚力的初探〉，《資訊社會研究》，(1):57-83。劉光瑩（2017年8月9日）。〈台灣為何陷入缺電風險？3個不願面對的真相〉，《天下雜誌》。取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5084314翟本瑞（2011）。〈從社區、虛擬社區到社會網絡網站：社會理論的變遷〉，《資訊社會研究》，21:1-31。謝君蔚、徐美苓（2011）。〈媒體再現科技發展與風險的框架與演變:以基因改造食品新聞為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，20:143-179。鍾宏彬（2003）。〈影響網路謠言傳播的因素及擴散模式-由電子郵件謠言的散播與企業闢謠作為談起〉，政治大學企業管理所碩士論文。聯合新聞網（2017年8月16日）。〈整理包／全台無預警跳電 整起事件看這裡〉，《聯合新聞網》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282聯合新聞網（2017年8月16日）。〈整理包／全台無預警跳電 整起事件看這裡〉，《聯合新聞網》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282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》。三民出版。盧安邦、鄭宇君（2017）。〈用方法說故事:探析電腦輔助文本分析工具在框架研究之應用〉。《傳播研究與實踐》，7：145-178。蘇蘅(1986)。〈媒介報導衝突事件的角色分析—以報紙報導核四廠興建的爭議為 例〉，《新聞學研究》，36:251-285。Avery, E. J. (2010). Contextual and audience moderators of channel selection and mes-sage reception of public health information in routine and crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 378–403.Ahmed Al-Rawi(2017). News values on social media: News organizations’ Facebook use. Journalism, 18(7):871-889.Bosso, Christopher J. (1987). Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Baumgartner, Frank, and Brian Jones(1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in Organizations II,2nd edn., College Division South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.Baron, G., & Philbin, J. (2009, March). Social media in crisis communication: Start with a drill. Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7909/105/Social_media_in_crisis_communication_Start_with_aBernardo, Sergio, Augsin（2014）. The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. An analysis of the most relevant frames in the Spanish press. Communication &Society, 67,3 , 65-81.Cammaerts, B. (2013). The mediation of insurrectionary symbolic damage: The 2010 U.K. student protests. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(4), 525–548. doi:10.1177/1940161213496283Downs, Anthony. (1972). Up and Down with ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. The Public Interest, 28:38–51.Damian Trilling, Petro Tolochko, and Björn Burscher (2017). From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1):38-60.Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of atti- tudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.Flynn, J., Peters, E., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1998). Risk, Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Analysis, 18 (6), 717–727. Grzegorz & Barry (2016). News framing effects on destination risk perception. Tourism Management, 57, 234-244.Hansson, S. O. (2002). Uncertainties in the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(17), 39-46.McDonald, L.M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A.I. (2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263-271.Health, R. L., Palenchar, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (2009). Community building through risk communication infrastructures. Handbook of risk and crisis communication, 471-487.Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2010). Microblogging for crisis communication: Examination of Twitter use in response to a 2009 violent crisis in the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington area. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Seattle, WA.Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation?Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.Kim, S. J. (2003). The influence of the interaction between the Internet and the mass media on the formation of the public sphere. Japanese Sociological Review, 54, 175-191.Kristina Lerman, Rumi Ghosh(2010). Predicting Influential Users in Online Social Networks. Retrieved from:https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4882Lippmann, W. (1922/1997). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press. Liu, B. F. (2010). Distinguishing how elite newspapers and A-list blogs cover crisis:Insights for managing crises online. Public Relations Review, 36 , 28–34.Miller, M.M., & Riechert, B.P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant. (Eds.), Framing public life (p.107-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Murdock, G., Petts, J., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2003). After amplification: Rethinking the role of the media in risk communication. In N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk (pp. 156-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511550461.008Matthew C. Nisbet and Mike Huge（2006）. Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power and Participation through the Press/Policy Connection. International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3-40.Ogrizek, M., & Guillery, J. M.(1999). Communicating in Crisis：［a Theoretical and Practical Guide to Crisis Management］. Transaction Publishers.Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 421–436. doi:10.1177/09636625070 81242Pamela (Ferrante) Walaski. (2011). Risk and Crisis Communications: Methods and Messages.First Edition. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Rojecki, A. (1999). Silencing the opposition: Antinuclear movement and the media in the cold war. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Rui Shi (2016). Viewer-generated Comments To Online Health Policy News: Content, Dynamic, And Influence. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Published by ProQuest LLC (2016).Robert D. J., & Thomas T. H. (2018). Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, Vol. 38, No. 10.Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311– 322.Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322–325.Shih, T. J., Wijaya, R., & Brossard, D. (2008). Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society, 11(2), 141–160. doi:10.1080/15205430701668121Sonderman, J. (2012, Oct 22). How the Huffington Post handles 70+ million comments a year. Poynter. Retrieved from http:// http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top- stories/190492/how-the-huffington-post-handles-70-million-comments-a-year/Sebastián Valenzuela , Martina Piña, & Josefina Ramírez（2017）. Behavioral Effects of Framing on Social Media Users: How Conflict, Economic, Human Interest, and Morality Frames Drive News Sharing. Journal of Communication, 67, 803-826.Ulrich Beck. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. SAGE Publications.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials. Washington, D.C.Tiessen, M., McKelvey, F., & Simcoe, L. (2015). A consensual hallucination no more? The Internet as simulation machine. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18, 577-594.Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). Public framing organizational crisis situations: Social media versus news media. Public Relations Review, 39, 229-231.Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Verhoeven, P., Beentjes, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). When frames align: The interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40, 751-761.Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1987). Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 80–92.Weart, Spencer R. (1988). Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.W Timothy Coombs(2003). Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication Insights From Situational Crisis Communication Theory.W Timothy Coombs(2007). Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication. Theory Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3):163-176.Wiedemann PM, Clauberg M, Börner F (2011). Risk communication for companies. FischerVerlag. http://www.wiedemannonline.com/blog/wpcontent/materialien/downloads/Risk%20communication%20for%20companies.pdfYingying (2017). Smog Pollution in China: News Framing and Issue-Attention Cycle per the People’s Daily. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7113 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程
105464031資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105464031 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蘇蘅 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Su, Herng en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林凱琳 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Kai-Lin en_US dc.creator (作者) 林凱琳 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Kai-Lin en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-Jan-2019 17:19:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-Jan-2019 17:19:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Jan-2019 17:19:40 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105464031 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/121751 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105464031 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討複合性風險事件的傳播中，新聞框架對線上公眾參與的影響，透過815大停電事件的個案分析，藉以了解台灣不同的網路新聞媒體如何透過新聞框架傳播復合性風險以達到風險溝通，同時也從停電事件中，最多網友討論停電事件的PTT八卦板撈取主文及回文的資料，了解公眾轉貼哪些新聞網站的新聞作為風險消息的解讀依據。本研究使用意藍科技提供的Opview Insight資料庫系統撈取撈取台灣四大新聞網站的新聞，包含聯合報、自由時報、中時電子報、蘋果日報，以及PTT上的相關新聞的引用主文及回文，採用框架分析及樞紐分析法了解網路新聞媒體在事件不同階段的新聞框架及PTT網友轉貼、回應新聞的內容的屬性。研究結果顯示，不同的新聞網站對議題的關注趨勢存在差異，自由時報、中時電子報以15日為關注高峰；蘋果日報、聯合報、PTT則以16日為議題關注高峰。此外，在複合性風險事件的傳播上，相較於風險的種類，媒體及公眾更為在意的內容是未來發生事件的可能（增量）。媒體的角色亦隨事件發展而有所不同，第一階段為中介者的角色，主要為回報事件訊息，第二、三階段轉為詮釋與促發的角色。新聞框架的效果分析結果顯示，新聞框架在風險事件發生的3日內發揮影響力。新聞框架的多元性亦對討論串的長度和立場有所影響：其中單一框架新聞所引發的討論數量最多；無框架與單一框架新聞的中立/無立場討論串之比例較高，而多框架新聞的噓文比例較高。此研究結果給予複合性風險事件傳播實務上的建議，可作為未來危機公關處理、風險溝通的參考，若要減緩網友的負面聲浪，新聞框架不宜使用太多，但如果想引發網友熱烈討論，且討論立場非以負面立場討論，則適合使用單一框架的新聞。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims to explore the effect of the construction of news and the impact of online public participation in multiple risk event. In order to understand the different directions of news framing, this study took Aug 15 power blackout as a case study to analyze the news coverage from the four major news websites in Taiwan and the PTT, which was the platform where the public shared and discussed the risk information.This research analyzed the news from United Daily News, Liberty Times, China Times, Apple Daily, and the news be shared on PTT by Excel PivotTable and Frame Analysis. The research results showed that different news websites had different attention trends on Aug 15 power blackout. Liberty Times and China Times published the most of the news happen from 15th, while Apple Daily, United Daily News, and PTT published the most news coverage happen from 16th. In addition, the media and the public are mostly concerned about the possibility of the risk happening in the future compared to the types of risks. The role of the media also varies with the development of the event. In the first period of Aug 15 power blackout, the role of the media was the intermediary, who was reporting the information of the event. While in the second and third periods, the role of the media was the interpreter.The study showed that the framing effect lasted for the first 3 days of the risk event. The diversity of the news frame also had an impact on the amount of the comments and the attitude of the comments, which single-frame news led to the most discussions. Besides, the diversity of frame had an impact on the position of comments, which the single and no frame news led to the higher proportion of neutral discussions. Multi-frame news has a higher percentage of dislikes.The results of this study gave practical advice on the dissemination of multiple risk events, which can be used as a reference for planning the strategy of public relations and risk communication. The results suggested that the fewer frames in the news, the less negative comments. The single frame led to the higher proportion of neutral comments. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 815全台大停電的意義 4第三節 問題意識 9第二章 文獻探討 12第一節 複合性風險溝通 12第二節 新聞的風險傳播與議題框架 16第三節 網路社群參與的特性 25第四節 新聞框架對社群參與的影響 32第五節 研究問題 39第三章 研究方法 42第一節 815停電事件中網路新聞及網友反應概述 42第二節 研究樣本 43第三節 分析方法 48第四節 研究架構 53第四章 資料分析 54第一節 網路媒體的整體聲量趨勢 54第二節 新聞網站與PTT引用的新聞框架 55第三節 新聞網站的框架立場 62第四節 新聞網站與PTT引用的新聞議題 75第五節 新聞網站的議題立場 90第六節 三階段的新聞立場與網友回應 99第七節 新聞框架與網友反應 108第八節 研究結果統整 114第五章 結論與討論 117第一節 研究發現與討論 117第二節 研究貢獻 123第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 125 zh_TW dc.format.extent 9282143 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105464031 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 風險傳播 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 新聞框架 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 線上社群參與 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) PTT zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Risk communication en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) News framing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Online public participation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) PPT en_US dc.title (題名) 複合性風險事件之新聞框架對網路社群參與之影響—以815全台大停電為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The effect of news framing on PTT participation in multiple risk event- take the Aug 15 blackout for example en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 天下雜誌（2017年8月9日）。〈台灣為何陷入缺電風險？3個不願面對的真相〉，《天下雜誌》。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5084314中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈815全台大停電 原因影響各界反應一次看[更新]〉，《中央通訊社》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈台灣歷年限電大事記〉，《中央通訊社》。取自http://www.cna.com.tw/news/afe/201708150392-1.aspx中央通訊社（2017年8月15日）。〈815全台大停電 原因影響各界反應一次看[更新]〉，《中央通訊社》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282台灣網路資訊中心。2017。〈2017台灣寬頻網路使用調查〉。https://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/20170721e.pdf吳芳如（2002）。《消息來源、新聞框架與媒介真實之建構:以政黨輪替後之核 四爭議案為例》。世新大學傳播研究所碩士論文。吳宜蓁（2005）。《危機傳播》。五南圖書出版。吳宜蓁（2011）。〈運用網路社交媒體於風險溝通 —— 以 2009 —2010年台灣政府H1N1防疫宣導為例〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，15:125-160。吳國華(2014)。〈危機傳播研究〉，洪浚浩(編)《傳播學新趨勢》， 頁 216-244。北京：華大學出版社。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。周桂田（2003）。〈從「全球化風險」到「全球在地化風險」之研究進路：對貝克理論的批判思考〉，《台灣社會學刊》，31：153-188。林照真（2013）。〈台灣電視新聞之災難報導：以「莫拉克」風災為例〉，《新聞學研究》，115:141-185。林潔玲（2017年7月30日）。〈颱風導致電塔倒塌 周四亮限電警戒紅燈〉，《經濟日報》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/7238/2613733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。陳憶寧（2002）。〈公共議題之遊戲框架初探:以核四議題為例〉，《新聞學研究》， 72:85-117。陳智傑（2011）。〈機構的風險責任與公共論述 —— 傳媒呈現香港滙豐控股負面消息的 個案研究〉，《傳播與社會學刊》，15:187-214。張春炎、楊樺、葉欣誠（2015）。〈自然災難與媒體建構:以 TVBS 新聞為例，重探八八風災新聞論述〉，《環境教育研究》，11: 1-30。黃懿慧（2011）。〈風險社會與危機傳播〉。《傳播與社會學刊》，15:27-32。黃上銓、林意仁、蕭煒馨、李紹良（2016）。《婉君妳好嗎？：給覺醒鄉民的PTT進化史》。台北：學群出版。楊意菁（2013）。〈網路意見的新聞再現與公眾想像:「網友說」新聞的內 容與論述分析〉，《中華傳播學刊》，24:119-164。楊意菁、徐美苓（2010）。〈風險社會概念下的風險溝通與網路傳播：以全球暖化議題為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，18:151-191。楊韶彧(1993)。《從消息來源途徑探討議題建構過程-以核四建廠爭議為例》。政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。趙于萱（2015）。〈風險爭議下的能源新聞框架分析—以《遠見》和《聯合報》的專題為例〉。廖鐿鈤（2001）。〈虛擬社區凝聚力的初探〉，《資訊社會研究》，(1):57-83。劉光瑩（2017年8月9日）。〈台灣為何陷入缺電風險？3個不願面對的真相〉，《天下雜誌》。取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5084314翟本瑞（2011）。〈從社區、虛擬社區到社會網絡網站：社會理論的變遷〉，《資訊社會研究》，21:1-31。謝君蔚、徐美苓（2011）。〈媒體再現科技發展與風險的框架與演變:以基因改造食品新聞為例〉，《中華傳播學刊》，20:143-179。鍾宏彬（2003）。〈影響網路謠言傳播的因素及擴散模式-由電子郵件謠言的散播與企業闢謠作為談起〉，政治大學企業管理所碩士論文。聯合新聞網（2017年8月16日）。〈整理包／全台無預警跳電 整起事件看這裡〉，《聯合新聞網》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282聯合新聞網（2017年8月16日）。〈整理包／全台無預警跳電 整起事件看這裡〉，《聯合新聞網》。取自https://udn.com/news/story/11419/2644282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》。三民出版。盧安邦、鄭宇君（2017）。〈用方法說故事:探析電腦輔助文本分析工具在框架研究之應用〉。《傳播研究與實踐》，7：145-178。蘇蘅(1986)。〈媒介報導衝突事件的角色分析—以報紙報導核四廠興建的爭議為 例〉，《新聞學研究》，36:251-285。Avery, E. J. (2010). Contextual and audience moderators of channel selection and mes-sage reception of public health information in routine and crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 378–403.Ahmed Al-Rawi(2017). News values on social media: News organizations’ Facebook use. Journalism, 18(7):871-889.Bosso, Christopher J. (1987). Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Baumgartner, Frank, and Brian Jones(1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.Barton, L. (2001). Crisis in Organizations II,2nd edn., College Division South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.Baron, G., & Philbin, J. (2009, March). Social media in crisis communication: Start with a drill. Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7909/105/Social_media_in_crisis_communication_Start_with_aBernardo, Sergio, Augsin（2014）. The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. An analysis of the most relevant frames in the Spanish press. Communication &Society, 67,3 , 65-81.Cammaerts, B. (2013). The mediation of insurrectionary symbolic damage: The 2010 U.K. student protests. International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(4), 525–548. doi:10.1177/1940161213496283Downs, Anthony. (1972). Up and Down with ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. The Public Interest, 28:38–51.Damian Trilling, Petro Tolochko, and Björn Burscher (2017). From Newsworthiness to Shareworthiness How to Predict News Sharing Based on Article Characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1):38-60.Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of atti- tudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.Flynn, J., Peters, E., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1998). Risk, Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Analysis, 18 (6), 717–727. Grzegorz & Barry (2016). News framing effects on destination risk perception. Tourism Management, 57, 234-244.Hansson, S. O. (2002). Uncertainties in the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(17), 39-46.McDonald, L.M., Sparks, B., & Glendon, A.I. (2010). Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 263-271.Health, R. L., Palenchar, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (2009). Community building through risk communication infrastructures. Handbook of risk and crisis communication, 471-487.Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2010). Microblogging for crisis communication: Examination of Twitter use in response to a 2009 violent crisis in the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington area. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Seattle, WA.Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation?Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159-1168.Kim, S. J. (2003). The influence of the interaction between the Internet and the mass media on the formation of the public sphere. Japanese Sociological Review, 54, 175-191.Kristina Lerman, Rumi Ghosh(2010). Predicting Influential Users in Online Social Networks. Retrieved from:https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4882Lippmann, W. (1922/1997). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press. Liu, B. F. (2010). Distinguishing how elite newspapers and A-list blogs cover crisis:Insights for managing crises online. Public Relations Review, 36 , 28–34.Miller, M.M., & Riechert, B.P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant. (Eds.), Framing public life (p.107-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Murdock, G., Petts, J., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2003). After amplification: Rethinking the role of the media in risk communication. In N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk (pp. 156-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511550461.008Matthew C. Nisbet and Mike Huge（2006）. Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power and Participation through the Press/Policy Connection. International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3-40.Ogrizek, M., & Guillery, J. M.(1999). Communicating in Crisis：［a Theoretical and Practical Guide to Crisis Management］. Transaction Publishers.Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 421–436. doi:10.1177/09636625070 81242Pamela (Ferrante) Walaski. (2011). Risk and Crisis Communications: Methods and Messages.First Edition. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Rojecki, A. (1999). Silencing the opposition: Antinuclear movement and the media in the cold war. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Rui Shi (2016). Viewer-generated Comments To Online Health Policy News: Content, Dynamic, And Influence. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Published by ProQuest LLC (2016).Robert D. J., & Thomas T. H. (2018). Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, Vol. 38, No. 10.Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311– 322.Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322–325.Shih, T. J., Wijaya, R., & Brossard, D. (2008). Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society, 11(2), 141–160. doi:10.1080/15205430701668121Sonderman, J. (2012, Oct 22). How the Huffington Post handles 70+ million comments a year. Poynter. Retrieved from http:// http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top- stories/190492/how-the-huffington-post-handles-70-million-comments-a-year/Sebastián Valenzuela , Martina Piña, & Josefina Ramírez（2017）. Behavioral Effects of Framing on Social Media Users: How Conflict, Economic, Human Interest, and Morality Frames Drive News Sharing. Journal of Communication, 67, 803-826.Ulrich Beck. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. SAGE Publications.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials. Washington, D.C.Tiessen, M., McKelvey, F., & Simcoe, L. (2015). A consensual hallucination no more? The Internet as simulation machine. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18, 577-594.Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Verhoeven, P. (2013). Public framing organizational crisis situations: Social media versus news media. Public Relations Review, 39, 229-231.Van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Verhoeven, P., Beentjes, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). When frames align: The interplay between PR, news media, and the public in times of crisis. Public Relations Review, 40, 751-761.Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1987). Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 80–92.Weart, Spencer R. (1988). Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.W Timothy Coombs(2003). Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication Insights From Situational Crisis Communication Theory.W Timothy Coombs(2007). Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication. Theory Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3):163-176.Wiedemann PM, Clauberg M, Börner F (2011). Risk communication for companies. FischerVerlag. http://www.wiedemannonline.com/blog/wpcontent/materialien/downloads/Risk%20communication%20for%20companies.pdfYingying (2017). Smog Pollution in China: News Framing and Issue-Attention Cycle per the People’s Daily. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7113 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.COMM.040.2018.F05 en_US
