檢視中時、自由、蘋果三報「讀者投書」如何回應「郭冠英事件」：從仇恨語言的觀點分析

Abstract

2009年郭冠英以匿名「范蘭欽」在網路上發表論述，否定台灣、將台灣人民比為「瘋子」，以「高級外省人、台巴子」畫分群體，觸動族群問題的敏感核心。本研究將藉「郭冠英事件」，檢視《中時》、《自由》和《蘋果》的「讀者投書」，回應事件的論述類型。同時藉Cortese「仇恨語言發展模型」，剖析各類型中仇恨語言的嚴重程度，以討論媒體面對仇恨語言時扮演的角色。 本研究梳理三種論述類型，分別為「針對族群 以牙還牙」、「擴及藍綠 以恨養恨」與「規範尊重 消弭仇恨」。本文認為「以牙還牙」和「以恨養恨」的論述方式是為「仇恨語言」，兩者共佔全樣本八成二。而第三種「消弭仇恨」屬「反思」論述類型，卻僅不到兩成。 第一種「以牙還牙」中，投書者反對郭冠英「族群對立」的論述邏輯，卻選以郭冠英的仇恨字眼回應，再製「高級外省人╱台巴子」的對立。第二種類型「以恨養恨」，將論述擴及至「藍綠層面」，結合族群與政黨，則回應內容成為「本省綠營」和「外省藍營」的對抗。兩種類型畫分群體優劣、醜化外省群體，訴諸悲情強調心理痛楚，恐引起受眾者對他群的仇視心態，導致論述難跳脫仇恨循環，已陷入Cortese模型的「第三階段仇恨語言」。而第三種「消彌仇恨」則反思「言論自由」的界線，反省「仇恨語言」在台的嚴重性，但篇數顯少，可見台灣投書者對「仇恨語言」的反思力仍然不足。 因此，本研究認為第一、二種論述類型中，達第三階段以上的仇恨論述，皆需受到管制。且媒體必須提高對仇恨論述的敏感度，並藉由公民教育加強對仇恨語言的認知。

In 2009, Kuo Kuan-ying’s articles have raised the public attention in Taiwan for the controversial issues he brought up. He used metaphors to create a “one-state” relationship between Taiwan and China. Since his articles are considered to be hate speeches, this case has undoubtedly brought to a lot of dissatisfaction from the public. Many people (especially those Taiwanese and Mainlanders who are discriminated by kuo kuan-yin) expressed their thoughts through the newspaper forums. This study aims to analyze the “letters to the editor” in three dailies, China Times, Liberty Times and Apple Daily, and specifically focuses on the characteristics of text on “letters to the editor ”. According to the analysis, there are three types of discourses, including “tit for tat”, “nurturing hatred”, and “reflection”. Based on this study, the type of ”tit for tat” follows the logics of Kuo Kuan-ying; while that of “nurturing hatret ” extends to the political area and becomes the conflicts between pan-blue camp and pan-green camp. Besides, these two kinds of discourses have reached the third stage of hate speech (inciting discriminatory hatred) and they should be regulated. In contrast, the type of “reflection” denounces hate speech as irrational discourse, and encourages regulating hate discourses. And this is the better way to eradicate the hatred among people. Therefore, this study suggests that journalists as well as citizens should address the ethnic issue carefully and should not use hate speech.