则反对者较多（59.3%）。另外，核四案媒体的报导似也未能符合民众需求。从另外半数受众对媒体报导进行自我选择的情况看，媒体对许多受众关切的核能安全及电力需求等问题都未充分讨论。一方面这虽与民进党政府未作周延准备与民沟通，及各政党投注于政治角力有关，一方面也是媒体囿于新闻操作的窠臼，侧重政治冲突面的报导，才未能就此重要政策各种可能发展对社会民生的影响逐一厘清。而民众在未被充分告知这些讯息情况下，不管是透过民调或公投，所表达的意见与较全面而理性思辨后的结果必然有段距离，这对公共政策形成的质量无可避免有负面影响。 欲提升新闻媒体作为民主社会公共论述平台的质量，新闻教育与实务工作者应共同深思传统新闻价值判断及新闻处理的适切性。而近年来兴起以公民关切层面为依，旨在引导公民参与公共讨论，以寻求问题解决方案的公民新闻理念（public or civic journalism）（Rosen, 2000），则似指出一可行方向。 本研究未竟之处为，作者虽筛选出同样以主流平面媒体为主要新闻讯息来源的受众，以分析媒介框架与受众议题认知图像及立场的关联性，但此为受限于资源而实行的策略。若有足够资源，在分析一议题的新闻环境时，应了解受众吸收讯息型态纳入其它电子、平面或网络媒体，以观察阅听人所处多元而复杂的新闻环境中，议题面貌与其认知的互动。另外，有关受众框架与媒介框架集体层次上型态之不同，未来相关研究除应再探索受众主动诠释文本的过程外，也应注意测量的问题，因本研究的结果可能与问卷开放式问题的型式有关。由于此题设计目的是，在不引导受访者情况下，请对方就核四案表达看法。因此，受访者并未被要求针对核四任何次事件进行表述，可能因而使受访者倾向从自身需求与关切层面考虑核四。未来比较媒介框架与受众框架时，若分析案例涵盖不同次事件，可考虑选取单一次事件，在指涉范畴一致的情况下，比较媒体与受访者对该次事件真实的建构，应更能掌握媒介框架与受众框架的对应关系。最后，受限于研究资源，本研究仅在核四案结束后，进行一次受众调查，因此，无法观察核四发展各时期，受众的核四认知及其核四政策立场是否有变化，也无法检测二者之间的相关性。未来相关研究若能透过小样本多次调查法配合议题发展，搜集跨时期受众框架资料，应有助于进一步了解媒介框架与受众框架的长期动态关系，以及此关系与受众相关评估的关联。 参考书目： 中华民国新闻局（2002）。英文版网站。The Republic of China Yearbook-Taiwan 2002. 取自 http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/ 5-gp/ yearbook/chpt16.htm。 臧国仁（1999）。《新闻媒体与消息来源──媒介框架与真实建构之论述》。台北：三民书局。 臧国仁、锺蔚文、黄懿慧（1997）。〈新闻媒体与公共关系（消息来源）互动：新闻框架理论的再省〉。 陈韬文等主编，《大众传播与市场经济》，页141-183。香港：胪锋学会。 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Chilton, P. (1987). Metaphor, euphemism, and the militarization of language. Current Research on Peace and Violence, 10, 7-19. Chung, W., & Tsang, K. (1993). News frames reconsidered: How does a news story negotiate reality. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, MO. Dawes, R. M. (1998). Behavioral decision-making and judgment. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 497-548) (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. Entman, R., & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Movement. Political Communication, 10, 151-167. Gamson, W. A. (2001). Foreword. In S. D. Reese, O H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. ix-xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kuglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. A. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huang, K. S. (1996). A comparison between media frames and audience frames: The case of the Hill-Thomas controversy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S. (1989). How citizens think about national issues: A matter of responsibility. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 878-900. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matter: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778-787. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf Crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research, 20, 365-383. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. Krosnick, J. A., & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The impact of war on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects

上一页  [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]  下一页