政論性談話節目影響之探討

The Influence of Political Call-in Programs

10.30386/MCR.200901_(98).0002

張卿卿(Ching-Ching Chang)；羅文輝(Ven-Hwei Lo)

政論性談話節目 ； 歸因 ； 框架理論 ； 預示效果 ； attribution ； framing theory ； political call-in shows ； priming effects

新聞學研究

98期（2009 / 01 / 01）

47 - 91

繁體中文

本文針對政論性談話節目的收視影響進行探討，以兩個實驗檢驗收視政論性談話節目可能產生的兩個面向之影響：（一）對議題∕事件肇因歸判與態度的影響；（二）對台灣未來前景信心的影響。針對第一個面向的影響，本研究以框架理論發，比較收視親藍與親綠政論性談話節目的民眾如何因節目中對於議題∕事件肇因的不同論述而做出不同方向的事件肇因歸判；同時也檢驗議題是否為親身經歷在過程中所扮演的調節角色；此外也分析收視親藍與親綠談話性節目的民眾，對於節目中所討論的議題∕事件或事件中當事人的態度如何因節目收視而產生不同程度與方向的轉變。針對第二個面向的影響，本研究以預示效果理論為架構，推論政論性談話節目收視還可能影響民眾對於台灣未來的信心；這部份主要探討節目中的肇因框架類型與節目中討論議題類型的差異，如何影響到收視觀眾對台灣未來前景的信心；結果發現當節目使用「個人歸因框架」（而非「政府歸因框架」）或節目中討論引發政黨對立的議題（而非政策議題）會顯著地降低民眾對於台灣未來前景的信心。

This paper primarily explores the influence of exposure to political call-in TV programs and call-in radio shows. The results indicated that experiment one demonstrated that exposure to pro-KMT programs (asopposed to pro-PPT programs) led participants to attribute the cause of the problems or issues discussed in the program to the government's incapability to a greater degree. However the results of experiment two indicated that listening to radio call-in shows, which held the government accountable for problems discussed in the shows generated more positive ratings regarding the prospect of Taiwan's future than listening to programs that held the people accountable.

1. 林麗雲(2003)。坐而言，起而行：「無盟」的實踐。台灣社會研究季刊，50，145-169。
   連結：
2. 洪永泰、國立政治大學選舉研究中心編(2001)。民意調查。台北:五南。
   連結：
3. Carroll, W. K.,Hackett, R. A.(2006).Democratic media activism through the lens of social movement theory.Media, Culture & Society,28(1),83-104.
4. Castells, F.(1978).The social democratic image of society.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5. Chia, S. C.,Lu, K. H.,Mcleod, D. M.(2004).Sex, lies, and video compact disc: A case study on third-person perception and motivations for media censorship.Communication Research,31(1),109-130.
6. David, P.,Liu, K.,Myser, M.(2004).Methodological artifact or persistent bias?.Communication Research,31(2),206-233.
7. Davison, W. P.(1983).The third-person effect in communication.Public Opinion Quarterly,47,1-13.
8. Eyerman, R.,Jamison, A.(1991).Social movements: A cognitive approach.University Park:The Pennsylvania State University Press.
9. Gamson, W. A.,A. D. Morris (Eds.),C. M. Mueller (Eds.)(1992).Frontiers in social movement theory.New Haven:Yale University Press.
10. Gamson, W. A.,Modigliani, A.(1989).Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power.American Journal of Sociology,95,1-38.
11. People's Weekly World (US)
12. Gunther, A. C.(1991).What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect.Communication Research,18,355-372.
13. Gunther, A. C.(1995).Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography.Journal of Communication,45,27-38.
14. Gunther, A. C.,Hwa, A. P.(1996).Public perceptions of television influence and opinions about censorship in Singapore.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,8(3),248-265.
15. Gunther, A. C.,Mundy, P.(1993).Biased optimism and the third-person effect.Journalism Quarterly,70,58-67.
16. Gunther, A. C.,Thorson, E.(1992).Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains.Communication Research,19,574-596.
17. Habermas, J.(1987).The theory of communication action.Cambridge:Polity.
18. Hackett, R.(2000).Taking back the media: Notes on the potential for a communicative democracy movement.Studies in Political Economy,63,61-86.
19. Henriksen, L.,Flora, J. A.(1999).Third-person perception and children: Perceived impact of pro- and anti-smoking ads.Communication Research,26,643-665.
20. Herman, E. S.,Chomsky, N.(1988).Manufacturing consent.New York:Pantheon.
21. Hourigan, N.(2001).New social movement theory and minority language television campaigns.European Journal of Communication,16(1),77-100.
22. Jensen, J. D.,Hurley, R. J.(2005).Third-person effects and the environment: Social distance, social desirability, and presumed behavior.Journal of Communication,55(2),242-256.
23. The history of media reform: Scanning the horizon
24. Klandermans, B.(1984).Mobilization and participation: Social psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory.American Journal of Sociology,49,583-600.
25. Lee, C.,Yang, S.(1996).Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.Anaheim, CA.:
26. Lo, V. H.,Paddon, A. R.(1998).Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication.Baltimore, MD.:
27. McAdam, D.(1982).Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
28. McAdam, D. (Eds.),McCarthy, J. D. (Eds.),Zald, M. N. (Eds.)(1996).Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
29. McCarthy, J. D.,Zald, M. N.(1977).Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory.American Journal of Sociology,82(6),1212-1241.
30. McChesney, R. W.(2004).The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century.NY:Monthly Review Press.
31. Nation
32. McLeod, D. M.,Detenber, B. H.,Eveland, W. P.(2001).Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other.Journal of Communication,51,678-695.
33. Meirick, P. C.(2004).Topic-relevant reference groups and dimensions of distance: Political advertising and first- and third-person effects.Communication Research,31(2),234-255.
34. Melucci, A.(1989).Nomads of the present.Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
35. FAIR
36. Paek, H. J.,Pan, Z. D.,Sun, Y.,Abisaid, J.,Houden, D.(2005).The third-person perception as social judgment: An exploration of social distance and uncertainty in perceived effects of political attack ads.Communication Research,32(2),143-170.
37. Rojas, H.,Shah, D. V.,Faber, R. J.(1996).For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,8,163-186.
38. Salwen, M. B.,Driscoll, P. D.(1997).Consequences of third-person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial.Journal of Communication,47(2),60-78.
39. Scott, B.,McChesney, R. W.,D. Berry (Eds.),J. Theobald (Eds.)(2006).Radical mass media criticism: A cultural genealogy.Montreal:Black Rose Books.
40. Shah, D. V.,Faber, R. J.,Youn, S.(1999).Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect.Communication Research,26,240-267.
41. Snow, D. A.,Rochford, Jr. E. B.,Worden, S. K.,Benford, R. D.(1986).Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation.American Sociological Review,51,464-481.
42. Starr, J. M.(2000).Air wars: The fight to reclaim public broadcasting.Boston, MA:Beacon Press.
43. Tewksbury, D.,Moy, P.,Weis, D. S.(2004).Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect.Journal of Communication,54,138-155.
44. Touraine, A.(1988).The return of the actor.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
45. Tsfati, Y.,Cohen, J.(2005).The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers.Communication Research,32(6),794-821.
46. Turner, R.,Killian, L.(1957).Collective behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
47. Wimmer, R.,Dominick, J.(1987).Mass media research: An introduction.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
48. 王甫昌(1996)。台灣反對運動的共識動員，一九七九至一九八九年兩次挑戰高峰的比較。台灣政治學刊，1，129-209。
49. 王振寰(1996)。誰統治台灣？轉型中的國家機器與權力結構。台北:巨流。
50. 何榮幸(1996)。一個自主性新聞專業團體的誕生：記「台灣新聞記者協會」組織過程與實踐經驗。新聞學研究，52，95-108。
51. 李天任譯、藍莘譯(1995)。大眾媒體研究。台北:亞太。
52. 林照真(1999)。當前台灣近似媒體觀察組織的幾個盲點。新聞學研究，60，171-176。
53. 邱皓政(2005)。量化研究與統計分析。台北:五南。
54. 洪裕程(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東華大學族群關係與文化研究所。
55. 胡幼偉(1998)。傳播訊息的第三人效果。台北:五南。
56. 張茂桂(1994)。民間社會、資源動員與新社會運動：台灣社會運動研究的理論志向。香港社會科學學報，4，33-66。
57. 楊汝椿(1996)。另類記者的媒體改造經驗：兼論內部新聞自由和新聞倫理重建。新聞學研究，52，83-94。
58. 楊國樞、徐正光編、宋文里編(1989)。台灣新興社會運動。台北:巨流。
59. 管中祥、張時健(2005)。新自由主義下的台灣媒體改革運動。台灣史料研究，24，196-236。
60. 羅文輝(2000)。媒介負面內容與社會距離對第三人效果認知的影響。新聞學研究，65，95-129。
61. 羅文輝、牛隆光(2003)。自尊、第三人效果與對限制媒介支持度的關聯性研究。新聞學研究，74，19-44。
62. 羅文輝、林文琪、牛隆光、蔡卓芬(2003)。媒介依賴與媒介使用對選舉新聞可信度的影響：五種媒介的比較。新聞學研究，74，19-44。

1. 陳莞欣、張錦華(2015)。從人權報導觀點分析五地10 報新疆衝突報導框架。新聞學研究，125，1-47。
2. 傅文成(2016)。臺灣「國防部發言人」臉書訊息策略之議題設定與預示效果研究。傳播研究與實踐，6(1)，169-197。
3. 劉正山(2009)。2008年總統大選競選期間政黨支持者選擇性接觸媒體傾向的分析。選舉研究，16(2)，51-70。
4. 劉正山、朱淑華(2012)。不中間的中間選民：以質性方法初探有政黨傾向選民隱藏政黨傾向的原因。東吳政治學報，30(4)，177-233。