巨龍崛起的威脅？評美國媒體在2008年金融海嘯後的中國形象

Abstract

中國改革開放三十年來，經濟的大幅成長，帶動綜合國力的快速增長。反觀，2008年9月15日美國第四大投資銀行雷曼兄弟宣布破產，不僅導致全球金融局勢劇變，更讓世人懷疑美國的國力是否將開始走下坡。金融海嘯的發生，無論美國或是中國學者皆認為，此一變局將會使美中關係進入新的轉捩點。過往針對美國與中國雙邊關係之研究，較少採用媒體文本進行觀察，但由於媒體對於塑造他國形象是相當重要的媒介，因此筆者將針對金融海嘯至2011年年底，美國媒體的中國形象進行研究，研究文本為美國兩大菁英報刊，分別為紐約時報以及華爾街日報有關中國議題之社論。 針對紐約時報以及華爾街日報所撰寫有關中國議題之社論，筆者欲採用之研究方法為量化分析之內容分析法（content analysis）及質化研究的批判論述分析法（critical discourse analysis），希冀能夠回答以下問題：（一）分析紐約時報及華爾街日報提及中國的社論內容，所抱持的正負面態度為何？（二）探究紐約時報及華爾街日報的社論內容，觀察其關注中國的議題為何？（三）觀察金融海嘯至今，紐約時報及華爾街日報之社論，為讀者所描述的中國形象。（四）紐約時報以及華爾街日報針對中國議題的社論，撰寫手法是否存在差異。 筆者經由研究發現，紐約時報及華爾街日報多呈現出中國的負面形象；主要關注的議題則為軍事�戰略�外交作為、國際經濟�國際貿易及人權�民主三類議題。對於中國在軍事�戰略�外交作為的議題，文本主要呈現出中國軍事實力的崛起將威脅體系現狀；針對國際經濟�國際貿易的探討，著重於中國對於人民幣匯率的操縱，將對世界經濟造成危害；在人權�民主議題則呈現中國對於爭取權利的人民所採取的殘酷鎮壓態度，並且反對人民對政治改革的訴求。兩大報對於中國議題之社論所採取的撰寫手法也具有差異，華爾街日報較偏向保守主義色彩，認為美中兩國無共同利益可言；紐約時報則帶有自由主義色彩，儘管同樣批評中國，但文本隱含著美國有義務鼓舞中國做出改變，並且讓中國能夠承擔更多國際義務，認為兩國之間存在共同利益。 儘管紐約時報及華爾街日報自2008年金融海嘯發生之後至2011年年底，社論內容普遍呈現出中國的負面形象，但仍期許中美兩國在未來皆能夠以更開闊的心胸去體察對方及包容彼此，並以更多元的合作取代對立。

After more than thirty years of opening and reform, China’s massive economic growth has driven a rapid increase in its national power. Looking back, on September 15th 2008, the United States’ fourth largest investment bank, Lehman Brothers, declared bankruptcy. This not only caused upheaval in the World’s financial situation, but even more so caused people to suspect that the United States’ national power was starting to decline. Both American and Chinese scholars hold the opinion that the financial crisis will cause Sino-American relations to enter a new turning point. In the past, research focussed on US-China bilateral relations rarely used media text surveys. But because the media is quite an important tool in the shaping of the image of other countries, the author will focus on the time period from the start of the financial crisis to the end of 2011 and carry out a study on China’s image in American media. The texts used come from the United States’ two largest élite newspapers, namely editorials concerning China in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

As for editorials on China written in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, the author’s selected research method consists of a quantitative content analysis and a qualitative critical discourse analysis. The hope is to be able to answer the following questions: 1. In the analysis of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on editorials concerning China, what kind of positive or negative attitude was there portrayed?2. While investigating the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal editorial contents, what sort of issues concerning China were there observed? 3. In observing the financial crisis until the present, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal editorials described what kind of image of China to the reader? 4. In the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal editorials about China, was there a discrepancy present in the way they were written?

Through this research, the author discovered that the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal mainly produced a negative image of China. The most commonly focussed-on topics were from three main categories: military/strategic/diplomatic behaviour, international economy/international trade and human rights/democracy. Relating to China’s military/strategic/diplomatic behaviour, this thesis mainly revealed the view that China’s rise in military power will threaten system status quo; discussions relating to international economy/international trade chiefly revolved around the charge that China’s manipulation of the Renminbi (Yuan) exchange rate will constitute a threat to the World’s economy; and on the human rights/democracy issue there appeared commentary on China’s attitude of brutal repression towards citizens striving for rights and its opposition to people’s demands for political reform. The two large newspapers in their editorials concerning China also presented differences in writing techniques. The Wall Street Journal tended towards conservatism, opining that the United States and China had no common interests to speak of. The New York Times on the other hand tended towards liberalism, while criticising China all the same, the text implied that the United States has the responsibility to encourage China towards change, as well as allow China to take on more international responsibilities, and thus there exists common interests between the two countries.

Although the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal presented a broadly negative image of China in their editorials during the period from the 2008 financial crisis until the end of 2011, there is still allowance of the United States and China to observe and tolerate one another with a more open mind, and to substitute antagonism with pluralistic cooperation.