Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/121723
題名: 東方、西方、全球普同: 新聞論述中的拉薩事件報導比較
East, West, Universality: A Comparative Analysis of Journalistic Discourse on the “3-14 Riots in Lhasa”
作者: 李光真
Li, Kuang-Jen
貢獻者: 蘇蘅
Su, Herng
李光真
Li, Kuang-Jen
關鍵詞: 全球化
「3‧14」事件
宣傳模式
框架設定
馴化
Globalization
3-14 Riots
Propaganda model
Framing
日期: 2010
上傳時間: 4-一月-2019
摘要: 全球化時代,媒體本應扮演各國化解歧見之橋樑,而透過國際新聞所呈現之國家形象,亦可謂一國之重要資產。故每當重大國際事件發生時,相關國家及反映該國立場之主流媒體莫不互爭話語權,國家固藉此進行攻防,閱聽人亦可管窺新聞報導背後的思維與框架。\n\n本研究以2008年3月14日發生於中國西藏首府拉薩的動亂事件為標的,選定中國《人民日報》海外版、台灣《中國時報》,及美國《紐約時報》,探究三者對此事件的呈現手法,瞭解其中是否有特定之宣傳模式與框架設定?是否出現框架競爭與話語鬥爭現象?並進一步探討隱含的民族國家利益之爭與東西文化價值落差。\n\n本研究鎖定兩關鍵時間點,一為事件發生初期,一為「京奧」聖火傳遞期間,總計197則報導。研究方法兼採框架分析與內容分析,並分別以量化及質化方式呈現。研究發現,紐約時報聚焦全球化框架,立論持平,並無「反共過濾器」;人民日報凸顯衝突框架,將動亂歸責於達賴集團,全無與國際對話接軌之能力;中國時報則慣將「2T」(Taiwan & Tibet)議題並置,馴化手法明顯。
In the era of globalization, the media is supposed to act as a means of communication for countries to reconcile differences. The international image of a country is also a key national asset. As such, whenever a major event takes place, the countries involved and their leading media invariably compete for definitive interpretation. Countries may launch attacks or mount defenses. The audiences may thereby get a glimpse of the ideological framework underpinning the reported stories.\n\nThis study focuses on the 3-14 Riots in Lhasa, 2008. Three media—China’s People’s Daily, Taiwan’s China Times, and New York Times—are chosen for a comparative analysis to see if propaganda model and framing devices have taken parts and if traces of discursive struggles can be detected.\n\nThis study aimed at two periods: days immediately after the incident and days when Olympics torch relay ran its course. A total of 197 reports are selected. With framing / content analysis as methodological choice, the findings are presented in quantitative and qualitative terms.\n\nThis study finds that the New York Times focus on globalization framing and is free from anticommunism filtering; the People’s Daily highlights conflict framing and wrongly blames “Dalai Clique”; the China Times juxtaposes 「2T」issues, apparently with an intention toward domestication.
參考文獻: 中文參考書目\n\n王力雄(2009)。《天葬:西藏的命運》,台北:大塊文化。\n\n王志弘等譯(2006修訂版)。《東方主義》,台北:立緒;Edward W. Said (1978). Orientalism. Wylie Agency (UK) Ltd.\n\n王宗安(2008)。〈達賴喇嘛與中共談判之癥結分析〉。《中國大陸研究》,2008年3月號:103-117。\n\n江麗美譯(2003)。《媒體操控》,台北:麥田;Noam Chomsky (1998). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements Of Propaganda. N.Y.: Seven Stories Press.\n\n西藏民族學院學報(2008)。〈現代性與民族意識:十三世達賴喇嘛的政治改革〉,鳳凰資訊網,歷史紀事。網址http://news.ifeng.com/history/1/renwu/200804/0411_2665_486614.shtml\n\n行政院大陸委員會企劃處(2008)。〈西藏抗爭事件及其後續效應〉,2008年5月。\n\n李金銓(2004)。《超越西方霸權:傳媒與文化中國的現代性》(Beyond Western Hegemony : Media and Chinese Modernity),香港:Oxford University Press (China) Ltd.\n\n李美華(2005)。〈從國際新聞流通理論探討台灣報紙國際新聞報導內容之轉變(1988~1999)〉。《新聞學研究》,85:111-139。\n\n李曄、王仲春(1999)。〈美國的西藏政策與「西藏問題」的由來〉。《美國研究》,1999年第2期:52-76。\n\n李艷紅(2003)。〈政治新聞的模糊表述:從中國大陸兩家報紙對柯林頓訪華的報導看市場化的影響〉。《新聞學研究》,75:169-199。\n林照真(1999)。《喇嘛殺人》(The Lama Killing),台北:聯經出版。\n\n胡光夏(2008)。〈衝突與戰爭報導的另類典範初探─和平新聞學〉。《復興崗學報》,92:213-244。\n\n孫治本譯(1999)。《全球化危機》,台北:台灣商務印書館;Ulrich Beck (1998). Was Ist Globalisierung? Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main.\n\n陳立勝譯(2003)。《亞洲價值與人權:從儒學社群主義立論》,台北:正中書局;Wm. Theodore De Bary (1998). Asian Value and Human Rights. US: the President & Fellows of Harvard College.\n\n陳韜文、李金銓、潘忠黨、蘇鑰機(2002)。〈國際新聞的「馴化」:香港回歸報導比較研究〉。《新聞學研究》,73:1-27。\n\n陳志剛譯(2004)。《全球化與反全球化》,北京:社會科學文獻出版社;Davie Held and Anthony McGrew (2002). Globalization/Anti-Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.\n\n陳雅玫譯(2006)。《新聞文化:報紙、廣播、電視如何製造真相?》,台北:書林出版;S. Allen (2004). News Culture. Buchingham: Open University Press.\n\n康鼎譯(1990)。《達賴喇嘛自傳:流亡中的自在》,台北,聯經;Dalai Lama(1990). Freedom in Exile: the autobiography of the Dalai Lama.\n\n馮建三譯(1994)。《文化帝國主義》,台北:時報文化;John Tomlinson(1991). Cultural Imperialism. London: Continuum.\n\n郭永虎(2008)。〈美國國會「涉藏立法」的歷史考察〉。《當代中國史研究》,2008年1月號:106-128。\n\n程早霞(2007)。〈美國中央情報局在中國與中美關係〉。《遼寧師範大學學報(社會科學版)》,2007年3月:120-124。\n\n喬木(2006)。《鷹眼看龍:美國媒體的中國報導與中美關係》,北京:中共中央黨校出版社。\n\n楊意菁、陳芸芸譯(2001)。《媒體原理與塑造》,台北:韋伯文化;Lawrence Grossberg, Ellen Wartella, D.Charles Whitney(1998). MediaMaking: Mass Media in a Popular Culture. US: Sage Publications Inc.\n溫洽溢譯(2008)。《脆弱的強權》,台北:遠流;謝淑麗。Susan L. Shirk (2007). China—Fragile Superpower: How China’s internal politics could derail its peaceful rise. Andrew Numberg Associates International Ltd.\n\n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:三民出版。\n潘忠黨、陳韜文(2004)。〈從媒體範例評價,看中國大陸新聞改革中的範式轉變〉。《新聞學研究》,78:5-11。\n\n閻紀宇譯(2006)。《遮蔽的伊斯蘭》,台北:立緒;Edward W. Said (1981, 2002). Covering Islam. New Century Publishing Co., Ltd.\n\n劉瑞生(2008)。〈涉藏報導與美國主流媒體的意識型態性〉。《新聞與傳播研究》,2008年3月號:19。\n\n魏玓(2000)。〈至死不渝的左派傳播研究先驅——赫伯特‧許勒:生平、思想與辯論〉。《當代》,153:18-29。\n\n魏玓(2003)。〈全球化與傳播:勾勒與定位一個研究主題〉,2003中華傳播學會研討會,新竹:交通大學。\n\n\n蘇瑛憲譯(1994)。《西藏生與死:雪域的民族主義》,台北:時報文化;董尼德。Pierre-Antoine Donnet(1990).Tibet mort ou vif. Editions Gallimard.\n\n\n龐文真譯(1996)。《國際傳播——歷史、衝突與全球中心的控制》,台北:五南;Robert S. Fortner(1993). International Communication. NY: Wadsworth, Inc.\n\n\n英文參考書目\n\nBantanen, T. (2005). Cosmopolitanization-now!:An interview with Ulrich Beck., Global Media and Communication, 1(3): 247-263.\n\nBerger, Guy.(2009). How the Internet Impacts On International News: Exploring Paradoxes of the Most Global Medium in a Time of ‘Hyperlocalism’, International Communication Gazette. 2009; 71; 355.\n\nBishop, P. (2000). Caught in the cross-fire: Tibet, media and promotional culture, Media, Culture & Society. 2000; 22: 645-664.\n\nCurran, J. (2002). Media & Power, London; New York: Routledge.\n\nEntman, R. M. (1991). Framing US coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41 (4), 6-26.\nGitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkley: University of California Press.\n\nGoffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.\n\nHerman,E. & Chomsky, N.(1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. US: Pantheon Books.\n\nKlaehn, J.(2002). A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’. European Journal of Communication. 2002; 17; 147.\n\nKnaus, J. K. (1999).《冷戰孤兒:美國與西藏為生存的抗爭》(Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival). New York: Public Press.\n\nLi, Juan(2009). Intertextuality and national identity: discourse of national conflicts in daily newspapers in the United States and China. Discourse & Society. 2009; 20; 85\n\nOrville, S. (1999). Once a Shangri-la Where China Now Dominates, New York Times, 1999(9):31.\n\nPetras, J., and Veltmeyer, H. (2001). Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. London: Zed Books.\n\nRuigrok, W., and Tulder, R. V. (1995). The Logic of International Restructuring. London: Routledge.\n\nSkinner, Q. (1978). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\nTuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study of social construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院碩士在職專班
93941001
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093941001
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
100101.pdf1.72 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.