請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86204
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 谷玲玲(Lin-lin Ku) | |
dc.contributor.advisor | 谷玲玲(Lin-lin Ku | linlinku759122@gmail.com | ), | |
dc.contributor.author | SHUANG WU | en |
dc.contributor.author | 吳雙 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:42:09Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-09-06 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 楊意菁、徐美苓(2012)。〈環境風險的認知與溝通: 以全球暖化議題的情境公眾為例〉。《中華傳播學刊》,22:169-209。 周桂田(2005)。〈知識、科學與不確定性―專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,13: 131-180。 管中祥(2008)。〈公共電視的新媒體服務:PeoPo 公民新聞的傳播權實踐〉。《廣播與電視》,29:85-112。 Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Anderson, A. (1997). Media, culture and the environment. London: UCL Press. Andrew, K. T., & Caren, N. (2010). Making the news: Movement organization, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841-866. Arkin, E. B. (1989). Translation of risk information for the public: Message development. In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, & M. T. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 127-135). New York: Plenum Press. Aronczyk, M. (2018). Environment 1.0: Infoterra and the making of environmental information. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1832-1849. Atkinson, L, & Takahashi, B, & Katz-Kimchi, M, (2016). Climate and sustainability communication campaigns. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4731-4735. Bailey, O.G., Cammaert, B., & Carpentier, N. (2007). Understanding alternative media. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi, India: Sage. Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views: A case study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 203-223. Boynton, G. R., & Richardson Jr, G. W. (2016). Agenda setting in the twenty-first century. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1916-1934. Bracken, M. B., Shepard, M. J., Collins, W. F., Holford, T. R., Young, W., Baskin, D. S., ... & Winn, H. R. (1990). A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury: results of the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1405-1411. Breeze, R. (2012). Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after Deepwater Horizon. Discourse & Society, 23(1), 3-18. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). New York: Routledge. Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A, 30(8), 1445-1460. Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223-243. Charteris, B. J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. England, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Charteris, B. J. (2006). Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581. Corbett, Julia B. (2006). Communicating nature: How we create and understand environmental messages, Washington, DC: Island Press. Cottle, S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, Risk society and the media: A catastrophic view? European Journal of Communication, 13(1), 5-32. Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (2003). Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world. Maryland, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and public sphere (1st ed.). London: Sage. Cox, R. (2017). Nature’s crisis disciplines: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1(1), 5-20. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43-63. DiMento, J. F. C., & Doughman, P. (Eds.). (2007). Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Dominick, J., & Wimmer, R. (2003). Training the next generation of media researchers. Mass Communication and Society, 6(1), 3-9. Downing, J. (1988). The alternative public realm: The organization of the 1980s anti-nuclear press in West Germany and Britain. Media, Culture, and Society, 28, 38-50. Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Fischer, K., Stenius, T., & Holmgren, S. (2020). Swedish forests in the bioeconomy: Stories from the national forest program. Society & Natural Resources, 33(7), 896-913. Fishman, M. (1988). Manufacturing the news, Austin: University of Texas Press. Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 769-783. Fortun, K. (2004). Environmental information systems as appropriate technology. Design Issues 20(3), 54-65. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news, New York: Vintage Books. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today, 24(2), 105-112. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade. Gusfield, J., Kotarba, J., & Rasmussen, P. (1981). The public society of intimates: Friends, wives, lovers, and others in the drinking-driving drama. Research in the Interweave of Social Roles, 2, 237-257. Hannigan J. (2006). Environmental sociology, New York: Routledge. Hansen, A. (1993). The mass media and environmental issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Hansen, A. (2010). Environment, media and communication, New York: Routledge. Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 7-25. Hardin, R., Pateman, C., Weingast, B., & Elkin, S. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hausknost, D., Schriefl, E., Lauk, C., & Kalt, G. (2017). A transition to which bioeconomy? An exploration of diverging techno-political choices. Sustainability, 9(4), 669. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Hughes, E., Kitzinger, J., & Murdock, G. (2006). The media and risk. In P. Taylor-Gooby & J. O. Zinn (Eds.), Risk in social science (pp. 250-270). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks. Los Angeles: Sage. Jessup, B. (2010). Plural and hybrid environmental values: A discourse analysis of the wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environmental Politics, 19(1), 21-44. Johansson, J. (2016). Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 137-146. Kaplan, A., & Goldsen, J. M. (1965). The reliability of content analysis categories. Language of politics: Studies in quantitative semantics, 83-112. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, S. T., & Basnyat, I. (2013). From press release to news: Mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Communication, 28, 119-132. Linné, O., & Hansen, A. (1990). News coverage of the environment: A comparative study of journalistic practices and television presentation in Danmarks radio and the BBC. Copenhagen: Danmarks Radio Forlaget. Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication (J. Bednarz, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16, 145-150. Martell, L. (1994). Ecology and society, Cambridge: Polity Press. Mason, J. O. (1989). The federal role in risk communication and public education. In Effective risk communication (pp. 19-25). Boston: Springer. Mathur P, (2009). Environmental communication in the information society: The blueprint from Europe. The Information Society, 25, 119-138. Maxwell, R. J. (1999). The British Government’s handling of risk: Some reflections on the BSE/CJD crisis. In P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 95-107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mazur, A. (1998). Global environmental change in the news: 1987-90 vs 1992-6. International Sociology, 13, 457-472. Mazur, A. (2016). How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012? Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), 207-222. McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion (4th ed.). Malden: Polity Press. Nelkin, D. (1987). The culture of science journalism. Society, 24(6), 17-25. Noelle-Neumann, E., & Mathes, R. (1987). The events as events and the events as news: the significance of consonance for media effects research. European Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), 207-222. O'Riordan, T. (1985). Research policy and review 6. Future directions for environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 17(11), 1431-1446. Ockwell, D., & Rydin, Y. (2006). Conflicting discourses of knowledge: Understanding the policy adoption of pro-burning knowledge claims in Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Environmental Politics, 15(03), 379-398. Oravec, C. L. (1984). Conservationism vs. preservationism: The “public interest” in the Hetch Hetchy controversy. Quarterly Journal of Speech,70(4), 444-458. Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2007). Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society. Public Relations Review, 33, 120-129. Pompper, D. (2004). At the 20th century’s close: Framing the public policy issue of environmental risk. In S. L. Senecah (ed.), The environmental communication yearbook, 1, 99-134. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reineck, H. E., & Y. M. Cheng. (1986). Geology and biology of calcareous algal reefs and boulder deposits on tidal flats of Taiwan. Ⅰ. Tidal flats of Neihai and Pali, NW-coast of Taiwan. Senckenbergiana Marit, 17(4-6), 187-200. Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, Policy-oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization,8(4), 649-692. Schanne, M., & Werner, M. (1992). Media coverage: Results from content analyses. In J. Durant (Ed.), Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research (pp. 169-201). London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology. Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials, Lexington: D.C. Heath and Co. Smart, G. (2011). 15. Argumentation across Web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change. Handbook of Communication In Organisations and Professions, 3, 363. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78-98. Stocking, H. & Leonard, J. P. (1990). The greening of the press. Columbia Journalism Review, 29, 37-44. Susan, L. C. (1993). Environmental risks and hazards, Hoboken: Prentice Hall. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86204 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在透過藻礁議題的媒體報導來探討台灣媒體在環境風險傳播中所扮演的角色為何?本研究認為,藻礁作為台灣獨有的生態環境與能源結構爭議性案例,反映了台灣社會對於生態保育、能源轉型的看法,以及台灣媒體在生態相關的環境風險傳播中的表現。 本研究採用內容分析法與論述分析法,對台灣四家媒體的藻礁報導作了詳細分析。研究發現,政府和中油在藻礁報導中呈現一致立場:支持三接建設。環保團體和在野黨達成論述聯盟,捍衛藻礁生態,反對三接建設。 主流媒體和另類媒體,在藻礁報導中也存在較大差異:主流媒體偏向以已有的論述或觀點為導向;另類媒體用更深一層的追問及反思,引導讀者想像風險的未來性或共生性,更有助於關心藻礁事件的民眾,深入探索與思考。 藻礁報導背後所反映的社會意涵是,民眾對斷電原因、政府能源政策不了解。政治意涵則是執政黨的能源政策及在面對能源、生態爭議時的策略。 本研究為未來台灣的環境傳播、風險傳播提供借鑑意義,也為環境風險報導該如何喚起閱聽人的警覺性,提供一定的參考價值。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis aims to explore the role of Taiwan’s media in the communication of environmental risks through media coverage of algal reefs in Datan. This thesis argues that the coverage of the Datan algal reefs, as a unique controversial case of ecological environment and energy system in Taiwan, reflecting the performance of Taiwan’s media in their communication of ecologically related environmental risks. This thesis uses content analysis and discourse analysis to analyze the Datan algal reef coverage of four Taiwan’s media in detail. This thesis found that the government and CPC took the same position in the algal reef report: supporting the construction of the third LNG terminal. Environmental groups and opposition parties reached an alliance to defend the ecology of algal reefs and oppose to the construction of the third LNG terminal. There were major differences between mainstream media and alternative media in the coverage of algal reefs. The mainstream media were oriented to the existing discourse or viewpoint. However, alternative media guided readers to evaluate risks with deeper questioning and reflection, which was more conducive to the in-depth exploration of people concerned about the algal reef. This thesis provides a reference for future research on environmental communication and risk communication in Taiwan and values for how to arouse readers' awareness of environmental risks. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:42:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2908202215181100.pdf: 2010055 bytes, checksum: 600ccc3e574f41976c5f53a77e26a598 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝…………………………………………………………………………………………ⅱ 中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………………ⅲ Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ⅳ 表目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………ⅶ 圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………………………ⅷ 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究動機 1 第二節、研究背景 4 第三節、研究方向及重點 11 第二章、文獻回顧 14 第一節、風險社會與風險傳播 14 一、風險社會 14 二、風險傳播 16 第二節、環境傳播 19 第三節、媒體的角色與功能 22 一、報導量理論 22 二、消息來源 24 三、媒體多元化 27 第四節、論述分析 29 一、論述分析概述 29 二、Hajer 論述分析架構 30 第五節、研究問題 42 第三章、研究方法 43 第一節、內容分析法 43 一、研究對象 43 二、分析區間與所選樣本 44 三、分析方法 47 第二節、論述分析法 52 第四章、研究結果與分析 53 第一節、報導量分析結果 54 第二節、內容分析結果 57 第三節、消息來源與報導主題 60 一、消息來源 60 二、報導主題 65 第四節、不同論述主體在媒體報導中的呈現 66 一、政府:三接建設迫在眉睫 66 二、中油:三接與藻礁共存 67 三、環保團體:藻礁面臨威脅抑或能源必須轉型 69 四、民眾:珍愛藻礁抑或支持三接 70 第五節、四家媒體的論述架構 71 一、《自由時報》 72 二、《聯合報》 78 三、《環資中心》 87 四、《環境報導》 91 第六節、主流媒體與另類媒體的比較 96 一、主流媒體間的比較 97 二、另類媒體間的比較 99 三、主流媒體另類媒體比較 101 第七節、報導呈現的政治與社會意涵 105 一、敘述脈絡 105 二、論述聯盟 106 第五章、結論 108 第一節、研究發現 108 一、藻礁報導量分析 108 二、報導呈現的論述主體意涵 109 三、主流媒體、另類媒體比較 110 四、政治與社會意涵 113 第二節、研究貢獻 114 第三節、研究限制與未來展望 115 參考文獻 117 附錄一 134 附錄二 137 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 檢視臺灣環境風險傳播—「大潭藻礁」新聞報導之論述分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Examining Environmental Risk Communication in Taiwan: A Discourse Analysis of News Coverage of the Datan algal reefs | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 楊意菁(Yie-Jing Yang),柯舜智(Shun-chih Ke) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 藻礁,環境傳播,風險傳播,內容分析,論述分析,主流媒體,另類媒體,論述聯盟, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | algal reefs,environmental communication,risk communication,content analysis,discourse analysis,mainstream media,alternative media,discourse coalitions, | en |
dc.relation.page | 139 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202936 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 新聞研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-09-06 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 新聞研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2908202215181100.pdf | 1.96 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。