Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131449
題名: 網路帶風向:2016年「還我七天假」勞基法修法個案研究
How to fly an opinion kite? A case study of the Labor Law Act amendment in 2016
作者: 詹賀舜
Chan, Ho-Shun
貢獻者: 劉慧雯
Liu, Hui-Wen
詹賀舜
Chan, Ho-Shun
關鍵詞: 帶風向
社群媒體
議題設定
符碼
中繼者
Mediator
Kite-flying
Social media
Agenda-setting
Symbols
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 2-九月-2020
摘要: 本研究試圖瞭解在多元媒體時代,政府與社運團體如何引導議題走向,帶\n動民意的認知,既所謂的帶風向。帶風向操作者如何取得民眾認同其論述方向\n並協助傳播給其他閱聽人?帶風向的策略是如何在過程中進行調整?中繼者在\n議題傳播過程中的角色?以及符碼的使用是否有助於議題傳播?帶風向的操作\n過程對於外界來說是隱晦不明,對於內部成員來說也可能是自我無法察覺的行\n為,本研究訪談勞基法修法的相關人員,包括政治幕僚、記者與社運團體,透\n過訪談資料的分析,並輔以數據資料的分析,來勾勒出帶風向的操作機制。\n\n研究結果發現,帶風向的操作成功與否,取決於操作者給予閱聽人的信任\n感強度,帶風向除了引導閱聽人對議題的態度,也可以稀釋對方的論述。其\n次,組織的架構與決策的彈性決定對議題反應的速度;再者,符碼的使用有助\n於吸引閱聽人的關注與理解,也方便閱聽人與中繼者的轉傳與分享。最後,中\n繼者除了有助於議題傳播外,也可能在傳播的過程中重新進行議題設定,讓距\n離核心行動者較遠的閱聽人偏離風向發起者的核心價值。帶風向的操作除了媒\n體使用的選擇外,也應該注意傳播網絡上個人節點的影響力與變化,才能將媒\n體使用效益極大化,提高帶風向的效益。
The present study attempts to explore how, in the era of multimedia, governments and activist groups affect agendas and sway public opinion, an act known as “kite- flying.” The researcher explores (1) how kite-flyers ensure that the public identifies with the proposed discourse and disseminates such discourse to other audiences, (2) how kite-flying strategies are adjusted, (3) the mediator’s role during the dissemination process, and (4) whether the use of symbols benefit agenda dissemination. Kite-flying remains opaque to external parties and may also be an imperceptible to internal members. The researcher interviewed personnel involved in the amendment process of the Labor Standards Act, including political staff members, journalists, and members of activist groups. By analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, the operating mechanisms for kite-flying are elucidated.\n\nThe results indicate that the success of kite-flying depends how much the audience trusts the kite-flyer. Other than affecting attitudes toward an agenda, kite-flying can also be used to dilute apposing discourses. Additionally, an organization’s reaction speed toward agendas depends on its organizational structure and decision-making flexibility. Furthermore, the use of symbols effectively captures the audience’s attention, enhances their understanding of the agenda, and benefits dissemination and sharing. In addition to facilitating agenda dissemination, mediators may also reposition the agenda, enabling audiences further away from the core action to deviate from the core value of the kite-flyer. Other than recognizing kite-flying as a tool for the media, attention should also be paid to changes in individual points of the dissemination network, thereby maximizing the benefits of kite-flying in the media.
參考文獻: 中文文獻\n\n卞冬磊、張紅軍(2007)。〈媒介時間的來臨:電子傳播媒介的時間想像〉。《新聞學研究》,90:101-139。\n王柯斐(2008)。《部落格意見領袖特質與互動性之關聯研究》。世新大學,企業管理學系,台北市。\n李河清(2004),問題與研究,43(6):73-102。\n李筱慧(2009),《網路運動與議題建構之研究—以 PTT 上之「黑米事件」相關文本為例》,淡江大學,大眾傳播學系,新北市。\n李宇美譯(2011),《鄉民都來了:無組織的組織力量》,台北市:貓頭鷹 出版。譯自 Clay Shirky, (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Group.\n李美華等譯(2004)。《社會科學研究方法》,台北:新加坡商湯姆生亞洲 私人有限公司台灣分公司。(原書:Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research.)\n林宇玲(2014),<網路與公共領域:從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式>,《新聞學研究》,118:55-85。
\n邱雯華(2006),《2004年總統大選議題設定效果之研究》。世新大學,\n傳播管理研究所,台北市。\n吳甲天(2013),《議題風向球操作機制》。國立政治大學,傳播學院碩\n士在職專班,台北市。\n吳宜蓁(1998)。《議題管理──企業公關的新興課題》。台北:正中書局。\n周圩宣(2010),《社會運動組織的議題管理與策略框架之研究:以台灣同志 諮詢熱線協會為例》。世新大學,公共關係暨廣告學系,台北市。\n陳維茜(2015),《新媒體時代下的社會運動實踐─太陽花學運中 Facebook 使用者的社會運動參與》,世新大學,新聞研究所,台北市。\n陳威諭(2012)《網路中的博弈文化-以 PTT 運彩版為例》,中正大學,傳播 學系電訊傳播研究所,嘉義縣。\n陳敦源、李仲彬、黃東益,2007,<應用資訊通訊科技可以改善「公眾接觸」 嗎?台灣個案的分析>,《東吳政治學報》,25(3):51-92.。\n陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂,2004,<電子化參與:公共政策過程中的網路公民參 與>,《研考雙月刊》,28(4):36-51。\n祝基瀅(1990)。《政治傳播學》。台北:三民書局。 翁秀琪(1996)。《大眾傳播理論與實證》。台北:三民書局。\n翁秀琪(2003)。《大眾傳播理論與實證》。台北:三民書局。\n張耀仁,2006,<跨媒體議題設定之探析:整合次領域研究的觀點>,《傳播與\n管理研究》,5(2)73-130。\n黃葳威(1996)。《台灣地區民眾對傳播媒介回饋型態硏究 : 以無線電視台為\n例》。(行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC85-2412-H-\n0004-010)。台北市 : 國立政治大學廣播電視學系。\n黃彥超(2013),《社群媒體的分散式結構、去中心化的特徵》,中國文化大\n學,商學院國際企業管理學系,台北市。\n楊志弘、莫季雍譯(1996)。《傳播模式》。台北:正中。(原書 McQuail, D & Windahl, S. (1993). Communication Models for Study of Mass Communication, 2nd ed)\n楊思偉(2005)。〈十二年一貫課程規劃之應有作法:以日本為例〉,《教育研 究月刊》。140:52-62。\n劉慧雯(2017)。〈建構「倫理閱聽人」:試論社群媒體使用者的倫理意涵〉,\n《新聞學研究》,131:87-125。\n劉慧雯(2018),〈以數據方法考察臉書上的公開分享:以懶人時報在學運期間的貼文為例〉,《傳播研究與實踐》。8(1):183-217。\n劉時君,蘇蘅(2017),〈政治抗議事件中媒體的創新使用與實踐:以太陽花運\n動為例〉,《資訊社會研究》,33:147-188。\n瞿文芳(2002)。《報紙報導環保事件議題建構過程之研究~以阿瑪斯號漏油\n汙染事件為例》。世新大學,傳播研究所,台北市。\n臧國仁(1998)。《新聞報導與真實建構:新聞框架的理論觀點》。國立政治大\n學傳播學院研究暨發展中心:台北市。(傳播研究集刊第三集)\n\n英文文獻\nBennett, W. L., Alexandra Segerberg, & Yunkang Yang(2018), “The Strength of Peripheral Networks: Negotiating Attention and Meaning in Complex Media Ecologies,”Journal of Communication 68, 659–684.\nBoyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) “ Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210- 230.\nCastells, M. (2012) “changing the world in the network society, networks of outrage and hope: social movements in the internet age,” Cambridge UK; Malden, MA:polity. p220-237\nCastells, M. (2007). “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society”, International Journal of Communication, 8 February, 238-266. 5.\nCastells, M. (2012). “Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age.” Cambridge: Polity.\nCobb, R. W. & Elder, C. D (1983)“Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. ”Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.\nDanielian, L.D. & Reese(1989)“News source and theme in the elite press:Intermedia agenda setting and the cocaine issue” in Communication Campaigns About Drugs Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nDearing, J. W. & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Feng(2016)Feng, Y. (2016). Are you connected? Evaluating information cascades in online discussion about the #RaceTogether campaign. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 43-53.\nKaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.\nKatz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (2005). Personal Influence, The part played by people in the flow of mass communications (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.\nMaletzke, G. (1963) Psycho;ogie der Massenkommunikation. Humberg:Verlag Hans Bredow-Institute.\nRaustiala, Kal, “States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions,”International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4 (1997), pp. 719-740.\nRogers, E. M., & J. W. Dearing. (1988). “Agenda-setting Research: Where It Has Been, Where Is It Going?” in Communication Yearbook 11, pp.555-594, edited by J. A. Anderson. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\nRoss, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering,\nM. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586.\nTufekci, Z. (2013). “Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 848– 870. doi:10.1177/0002764213479369
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
傳播學院碩士在職專班
101941006
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101941006
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
100601.pdf3.2 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.