Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68207| 題名: | 從混搭式報導出現,談學院知識份子在報紙新聞裡的形貌變遷 Changing Intellectuals species in Newspaper,1987~2009 |
作者: | 彭群弼 Peng, Chun Bi |
貢獻者: | 馮建三 Feng, Chien San 彭群弼 Peng, Chun Bi |
關鍵詞: | 知識份子 混搭式報導 蘋果日報 評匠 intellectual crossover-reporting Apple Daily pundit |
日期: | 2009 | 上傳時間: | 6-八月-2014 | 摘要: | 本研究始於採訪實務中的觀察：學者在報端發表評論，影響了讀者們對於重要新聞事件或社會議題的解讀，報紙則藉助學者的身分及知識，提高報紙的可信度。根據一份來自媒體內部的非正式排行榜卻顯示，短短數年內，知名的學者或專家見諸報端的次數竟然多達數百次，這份名單被用來提醒記者們少找這些高曝光者。美國媒體界通稱這一群常見諸報端的評論者為Pundit(研究者試譯為「評匠」)，他們擁有「一通電話，快速評論」的本領，甚至自嘲是「評論應召者」。這樣的轉變毋寧是巨大的，研究者試圖追尋知識份子在報紙裡形貌的轉變。\n 評論是報紙提供讀者除了資訊之外，得到觀點的重要來源。除了來自學院的知識份子之外，其他評論者還包括來自產業或具有專門知識的專家（例如律師、會計師、醫師或產業專門人士等），包括記者及專欄作家等媒體工作者以及透過投書表達意見的一般民眾。在報導形式上，除了客觀事實之外，摻入專家評論或民眾意見這種混合報導與評論的新聞，出現的頻率越來越多，尤以《蘋果日報》最常使用。研究者將此一報導形式稱為「混搭式報導」(crossover-reporting)，取其將不同性質的訊息及知識拼貼在一起之意，並作為觀察知識份子形貌變化的重要取徑。\n 本研究採定性及定量雙重取徑，透過內容分析法，選擇1987年（解除報禁）、1989、1997、1999、2003、2009等六個年份，包括：《聯合報》、《中國時報》、《自由時報》(1989年起)、及《蘋果日報》(2003年起)等四份主要報紙，以立意取樣觀察並紀錄評論者出現的次數、所佔面積/字數、位置(如新聞辦面、論壇版面或副刊版面等)、形式(如專文、座談會、受訪、讀者投書)，是否為混搭式報導等。另搭配對報導內容的定性觀察及深入訪談兩位新聞工作者，輔助量化分析所得並進一步進行質性探討。\n 結果顯示：雖然隨著報禁開放，學院知識份子的評論次數逐漸增加，但在22年間，評論的平均面積卻減少了52%，且從可完整論述的專文，逐漸退卻並轉進到民意論壇。以專文為例，從1987年的每篇平均320cm2，減少到2009年的80cm2。學院知識份子份量減少但次數增加，此一現象自2003年《蘋果日報》創刊後，大量採用混搭式報導就更形明顯。混搭式報導也提供了產業知識份子(專家)們評論的機會，甚至一般民眾都可以表達意見，出現的次數甚至不亞於比學者，但分量更為稀少，平均面積只有10餘平方公分。\n 至於深入訪談的編輯主管及第一線的記者都坦承在截稿時間壓力下及編輯部門要求下，會趨向選擇採訪口語表達能力好，反應快、可主動提供符合編輯需要的評論意見的學者或專家，與美國的評匠有相當高的同質性。\n 綜上，研究者認為，知識份子與報紙之間的關係，已從早期的文人報導，論政救國，逐漸退居到作為報導裡眾生喧嘩裡的評論者之一。知識遭到工具化，僅有滿足報紙設定立場的機械式評論。作為獨立意見提供者，知識份子或許應該維持反叛與堅持的態度，基於面向社會的責任感。在面對報業困境及呈現爆炸式成長的新興傳播科技與網路社群的同時，知識份子們應當重新自我書寫、發表並尋回獨立發聲的機會，方能作為社會良知，發聲以震聵 In order to emphasize the credibility of news reports and offer news analysis to the readers, newspaper as well as other media always quote the comments of experts or scholars. However, an informal ranking list came from a newspaper revealed that the same group of experts always quoted up to several hundred times within years, and the mangers of the this newspaper reminded their reporters to avoid interviewing those experts who were familiar to the public. The American media industry call a group of commentators with different specialties often shown in the newspaper as ‘Pundit,’who are well prepared to answer questions or express their viewpoints for the reporters in a phone call quickly. Thus, this phenomenon seems to be common not only in Taiwan but also in other countries.\nComments in the newspaper provide readers different point of views other than objective information. Instead of academic scholars, experts such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, columnists and senior media workers can also play the role of commentators.\nIn this study, we observe a kind of news report which reporters not only provide facts to the readers, but also quote the comments of the intellectuals, as well as that of common people. The study call this type of reports as ‘crossover-reporting,’ which is a new phenomena in Taiwan media industry, and the reporter of which combine different kinds of information in a report. This technique is seemed to be mostly used by Apple Daily. By analyzing how the intellectuals and their comments appears in the newspaper, the study tries to explore the changing roles of the intellectuals in Taiwan printed media. \nBoth quantitative and qualitative analysis are used in this study. We choose four newspaper from 1989 to 2009 as our materials. The properties of the comments were further analyzed by purposively sampling the appearance of intellectuals in the main contents in theses newspapers. We analyze the number of words, the section where the report appears (e.g. in the main reports, forums, or supplements), and the form (e.g. special articles, opinion, symposium, interviews, or letters to editors) to define whether a report is cross-reporting or not, and to observe the change of the role of intellectuals. Besides, we interview two senior media worker to gather qualitative information for our analysis; one of the interviewee is a chief editor and the other one is a senior reporter.\nThe results of the study shows that the number of comments from academic scholars is increasing since 1987 (the year which the Lifting of Martial Law is declared in Taiwan); however, the average area is decreased by 52% within 22 years, and the form they appeared is gradually transformed from integral special article to public opinion forum (e.g. the average area was 320 cm2 in 1987, but remain only 80 cm2 in 2009 in special articles). The study also shows since Apply Daily started publication in 2003 and its massive use of crossover-reporting, the academic scholars’ number of words quoted by reporter has decreased, but the number of academic scholars’ quotation has increased. \nWe also find that the using of crossover-reporting provides the opportunities for other intellectuals and even general public to comment on news issues. The number of their comment is even more than that of the scholars, but number of words of the former (average area is only about 10 cm2) is lesser than that of the latter.\nBy interviewing two senior media workers, both of them agree that, under time pressure and the demand from editors, they prefer to adopt the comments from those intellectuals who can express clearly, response quickly and actively provide information. This situation is very similar to that of American mass media industry of which the media always need ‘Pundit’ to give quick and clear comments for the needs of reporting and editing. \nIn words, this study demonstrates the change of the role of the intellectuals in the newspaper; they used to offered professional opinions for the public and played important role in politics. However, in the recent years, the intellectuals’ role gradually decline and become only one of the commentators appearing in media. Now professional knowledge is used only as tool to support the viewpoint of the newspaper. In our opinion, we still suggest that the intellectuals should remember their social responsibilities, keep their independent and critical roles and resist the present situation which regard them as only tools or materials of reporting. In facing the decline of printed media and the rising of new media technology such as internet and social media, the intellectuals should try to reclaim their position as the conscience of the society and reacquire their influencing role to enlightening the public. |
參考文獻: | #專書類\n王石番(1991)。《傳播內容分析法：理論與實證》。台北：幼獅。\n李瞻編(1979)。《中國新聞史》。台北：學生書局。\n李金銓(1987)。《吞吞吐吐的文章》。台北：久大。\n皇甫河旺(1991)。《報業的一念之間》。台北：正中。\n許紀霖(2003)。《中國知識份子十論》。上海：復旦大學出版社。\n許紀霖(1994)。《文化變遷中的中國知識份子》。台北：書林。\n葉啟政(1984)。《社會、文化和 知識份子》。台北：東大。\n舒嘉興(2001)。《新聞卸妝：布爾迪厄的新聞場域理論》。台北：桂冠。\n馮建三(1993)。《大眾媒介的編制外工作者之研究：以台灣報紙的學院知識份子撰稿者為例，1951-1991》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，（國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC81-0301-H004-523）。台北：政治大學新聞系。\n馮建三(1996)。《文人與報業:以媒體知識份子與學院知識份子的變動關係為例,1951-1993》台北：國科會專題研究。\n魏承思(2004)。《中國知識份子的浮沈》。香港：牛津大學出版社。\n蘇蘅(2002)。《競爭時代的報紙—理論與實務》。台北：時英。 \n羅文輝(1993)。《新聞理論與實證》。台北：黎明。\n龔鵬程(2000)。《知識份子》。台北：聯合文學。\n\n#文獻類\n朱傳譽(1979)。〈宋代傳播媒介研究〉，《中國新聞史》。台北：學生書局。\n余英時(1991)。〈中國知識份子邊緣化〉，《二十一世紀》6期：p15-20。香港：\n余英時(1999)。〈商業社會中士人的精神的再造〉，《知識份子12講》。台北：立緒。\n李金銓(2008)。〈近代中國的文人論政〉。《文人論政》。台北：政大出版社。\n何懷碩(1999)。〈人文之美與知識份子的責任〉，《知識份子12講》。台北：立緒。\n陳映真(1999)。〈台灣現代知識份子的歷史〉，《知識份子12講》。台北：立緒。\n徐榮華(2007)。《台灣報業經營困境與因應策略》。台北：政治大學傳播學院在職專班碩士論文。\n陳傳興(2006)。《道德不能罷免》。台北：如果。《文人論政》。台北：政大出版社。\n陳建華(2008)。〈共和憲政與家國想像：周瘦鵑與《申報‧自由談》，1921-1926〉。 \n馮建三(1995)。〈科技新聞是意識型態嗎？〉,《新聞學研究》,50:41-59。\n黃順星(2008)。《記者的重量：台灣政治新聞記者的想像與實作》。台北：世新大學傳播研究所博士論文。\n傅佩榮(1999)。〈知識份子還需要儒家嗎？〉，《知識份子12講》。台北：立緒。\n楊國樞(1999)。〈知識份子與社會良知〉，《知識份子12講》。台北：立緒。\n楊琥(2008)。〈《新青年》、「通信」欄與五四時期的社會、文化互動〉，《文人論政》。台北：政大出版社。\n劉永謀(2003)。〈SARS與中國知識份子〉，《二十一世紀》。香港：中文大學。（取自2003,9:網路版第十八期：http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/supplem/essay/0307040.htm）。\n趙勇(2008)。〈學者上電視與知識份子的缺席〉，《新聞學研究》96期:261-293。台北：政大。\n蘇鑰機(1997)。〈完全市場導向新聞學：蘋果日報個案研究〉,陳韜文(編)頁:215-233。《大眾傳播與市場經濟》。香港：鑪峰學會。\n\n#報刊雜誌類\n中國時報(2010-04-13)。〈面對公與義，再談台灣社會發展與變遷—余紀忠先生百歲紀念研討會〉1－4版。\n東年(1997-05-07)。〈知識份子的規格和特質〉。《聯合報》41版-聯合副刊。\n陳一珊,林幸妃(2008)。〈米果搶贏蘋果-旺旺收購中時集團〉頁:42-48。《天下雜誌》。409期。台北：天下雜誌。\n許敏溶，劉力仁(2009)。〈新聞學者,媒體團體痛批旺旺無理不饒人〉。《自由時報》，2009.6.5，A4版。\n許敏溶，趙靜瑜(2009)。〈言論刺耳 旺旺中時擬告學者與記者〉。《自由時報》，2009.6.13，A14版。\n蔡佩芳(2009)。〈150傳播學者槓上旺旺中時〉，《聯合晚報》，2009.6.16，A2版。\n譚淑珍，薛孟杰(2009)。〈NCC玩法濫權，祭出旺旺條款〉，《工商時報》，2009.5.18，A2版。\n謝柏宏,余麗姿,黃晶琳(2008)。〈204億元，旺旺買下中時集團〉，《經濟日報》，2008.11.4，A5版。\n謝文華(2009)。〈記協發動連署 16社團200餘人響應〉,《自由時報》，2009.6.17，A5版。\n\n#網路資料\n出版年鑑(2009)。〈新聞出版業〉，《2009年出版年鑑》台北，行政院新聞局。\n文建會,《台灣大百科全書》，台北，文化建設委員會。(網路版: http://taiwanpedia.culture.tw/web/index)\n林思宇(2010)。〈高行健讚台灣寶地，報紙水平低〉。台北：中央社。(取自網路：http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/100424/5/24h3d.html)。\n香港中文大學。(取自2003,6-網路版第十五期: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/supplem/essay/9100057.htm)\n\n#非出版類參考資料\n彭群弼(2007)。《專家與生手記者：『台前、台後』採訪行為初探—以颱風新聞為例》。政治大學傳播學院在職專班—資訊企畫與整合課程期末報告。\n彭群弼(2009)。〈五四運動知識份子與報刊關係座談會〉筆記。陳信元簡介中國報業緣起。\n\n#譯作類(依原作者英文比劃序)\n張家銘,王乾任譯(2002)。《立法者與詮釋者》。台北：弘智/原書：Bauman.Zygumunt(1987). Legislators and Interpreters\n孫傳釗譯(2004)。《知識份子的背叛》。長春：吉林人民出版社/原書：Benda,Julien(1955).Der Verat der Intellecktuellen.\n李俊,蔡海榕譯(2005)。《知識份子與現代性危機》 南京：江蘇人民出版社/Boggs,Carl(1993).Intellectuals and the Crisis of Modernity.\n林志明譯(2002)。《布赫迪厄論電視》。台北：麥田/原書:Bourdieu,Pierre(1996).Sur la t"el"evision suivi de L"Emprise du journalism.\n戴從容,王晶譯(2006)。《知識份子都到哪裡去了》。台北：聯經/原書:Furedi,Frank(2004).Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone？\n趙旭東,方文譯(2005)。《現代性與自我認同—晚期現代性的自我與社會》台北：左岸文化。/ 原書:Giddens,Antohony(1991).Modernity and Self-Identity:Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.\n顧晰譯(1992)。《中國知識份子的興起》。台北：桂冠/原書:Gouldner,Alvin(1982).The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of The New class.\n曹雷雨,姜麗,張跣翻譯(2000)。《獄中札記》。北京:中國社科院/原書:譯自Gramsci,A.(1971)The Prison Notebooks(Seletions From The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci edited and translated by Qintin Hoare and Geoferry Nowll Smith).\n洪洁譯(2002)。《最后的知識份子》。南京:江蘇人民出版社/Jacoby,Russell(1987).The Last Intellectuals.\n劉繼譯(1990)。《單向度的人-發達工業社會意識型態研究》。台北:桂冠/原書:Marcuse,Hebert(1964) One Dimentional Man.\n黎鳴,李書崇譯(2000)《意識型態與烏托邦》。北京:商務印書館/原書:Mannheim,Karl(1991[1936])Ideology and Utopia.\n韓文正譯(2004)。《公共知識份子 理查.波斯納》台北：時報文化/原書: Posner ,Richard .A.(2003).Public intellectuals; A study of Decline。\n單德興譯(1997)。《知識份子論》台北：城邦（原書:Said,Edward W.(1993)Intellectuals in Literature.\n傅鏗,孫慧民,鄭樂平,李煜翻譯(2004)。《知識份子與當權者》。台北:桂冠/原書:Shils,Edward(1972).The Intellectuals and the Power and others Essays\n溫恰溢譯(2007)。《天安門-中國知識份子與革命》。台北：時報文化/原書:史景遷Spence,Jonathan D.(1999)The Gate of Heavenly Peace:The Chinese and Their Revoltion,1895-1980.\n溫恰溢譯(2009)。《前朝夢憶-張岱的浮華與蒼涼》 。台北：時報文化/原書.史景遷Spence,Jonathan D.(2007).Return to Dragon Mountain:Memories of a Late Ming Man.\n\n#英文參考書目\nBaran,Paul.A(1998)。〈The Commitment of the Intellectual〉Monthly Review。取自: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n10_v39/ai_6323646 \nBenson, Rodney(2006)。〈News Media as a "Journalistic Field": What Bourdieu Adds to New Institutionalism, and Vice Versa.〉in 《Political Communication》; Vol. 23 Issue 2, p187-202, 1 chart。\nMcManus John H.《Market-Driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware?》chat.5,10,11.\nCohen ,Mark Francis.(2005).〈The Quote Machines〉.American Journalism Review。 \nTugend ,Alina (2003).〈Pundits For Hire. American〉. Journalism Review。\nSchmuhl ,Robert.(1999).〈Confessions of a Quote Slut〉.American Journalism Review。\nKurtz ,Howard(2005).〈Power of the Punditocracy〉Washington Post, October 28, 2005。 | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 傳播學院碩士在職專班 96941002 98 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096941002 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100201.pdf | 3.01 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.