廣播電視新聞學外文翻譯--對公共電視臺新聞和商業電視臺新聞的對比分析（節選）

1、<p><b>　　中文4867字</b></p><p><b>　　3085單詞</b></p><p>　　干預監管對重塑新聞議程的影響</p><p>　　——對公共電視臺新聞和商業電視臺新聞的對比分析</p><p>　　Stephen Cushion ，Justin Lewis

2、 ，Gordon Neil Ramsay</p><p><b>　　簡介</b></p><p>　　近幾年，很多政治家、政策決策者和媒體專家已經逐漸的認識到傳播媒體的監管是一個既繁瑣又官僚的工作，而且會妨礙創作的自由和創新（弗里德曼，2008；麥克切斯尼，2008；惠勒，2004）。雖然這個觀點已經在美國廣泛傳播了一段時間，但是在歐洲，尤其是英國，這個“自由市場”

3、式的媒介決策觀念更加流行（見巴賽特，2010）。</p><p>　　當然這并不能表明有效的監管架構失去了作用，也不能說明“自由市場”式的傳播系統已經完全取代了公共服務的傳播系統。在這方面，許多歐盟國家維持了一個強有力的公共媒介服務和一個穩健的媒體監管框架。特別是歐盟，已經開始尋求重新規范媒體市場，并防止不受約束的媒體統治市場。雖然許多國家的政府對媒體努力進行重新監管，但是對近幾年的媒介政治辯論持續的分析卻顯示，

4、大多數國家強加給傳播者的監管更少了而不是更多了（Freedman，2008；McChesney，2008；Puppis，2008年）。</p><p>　　媒體學者們對放松媒體監管的全球影響既有贊同又有批判（見Bennett，2004）。由于放松監管使更多的商業市場蓬勃發展，Norris（2000）認為信息化的社會環境由此得到了更大范圍的可用媒體來源。在這種情況下，商業電視新聞的興起與更多民主選擇的供應結合在了一

5、起，相比較那種公共服務所提供的居高臨下、曲高和寡的新聞，觀眾們可以根據他們的需要挑選更具娛樂性的節目（Baum，2003；Zaller，2003）。然而，許多學者質疑這種新的商業化節目的民主意義。Hallin在20世紀80年代寫關于放松監管所造成的結果的文章時，表示日益擴大的有線新聞所造成的競爭意味著美國新聞已赫然成為頻道之間的戰爭。Hallin（1994）認為美國新聞的特征已經改變，因為新聞主要是用來娛樂而不是把世界上的消息傳遞給受眾

6、。十多年后，Thussu（2007）認為這些觀念隨著公共電視的逐漸賣出和新聞流派由于市場競爭的重塑傳播到了全世界。換句話說，信息環境正隨著媒體的私有化而逐漸消失。</p><p>　　雖然很多學者對放松監管的媒體文化表示批判，但是還僅有很少的人去關注對媒體的再監管如何能夠提高而不是降低新聞的質量。這是片面的，因為很難去證明——用超出一般意義上的支持方式——媒體監管如何能夠通過“輕微改變”系統所不能的方式提高媒體內

7、涵。當然，有分析指出媒介監管存在國家的和不斷增長的超國家的變化 (Freedman, 2008: 13–15; McChesney, 2000, 2008; Wheeler, 2004)，還有分析進行了關于轉換監管模式的一般性討論，這些監管模式模式包括放松監管、再監管還有存在于關鍵利益相關者之間的更加靈活的共同監管和獨立監管。例如，在歐洲范圍內，Bardoel和D’Haenens（2008：348）肯定地表示：</p>&

8、lt;p>　　“……從保護機制到推動競爭的變化；政治上的任務和具體運作上的任務的分離（如獨立的監管機構）；從垂直監管（具體部門的監管）到水平監管的轉變；從國家監管到超國家和國際間的監管的位移；還有從國家的監管到個人和合作的監管的變化，這種個人和合作的監管是獨立個人和社會團體更加積極參與監管的體現?！?lt;/p><p>　　這種辯論往往圍繞具體立法上的話題，分析一般性的情況或帶有微小細節的行為或指令(Bardo

9、el 和 D’Haenens, 2008; Harvey, 2006; Livingstone et al., 2007; Wheeler, 2004)。然而，媒體和新聞研究鮮為人所理解的是在媒體行業被放松監管或再監管之后的不同種類新聞報道監管框架帶來的可衡量和對比的影響。</p><p>　　在這項研究中，我們進行了一個全面的內容分析來探索一個案例，這個案例是關于一個媒體監管者——英國廣播公司信托基金——如何試

10、圖重塑BBC新聞的議程框架，從而使節目更加準確的反映英國國家與其新興的政治機關的情況。英國的電視新聞傳播者不得不去適應并能對過去十年當主要權利從威斯敏斯特轉到蘇格蘭威爾士和北愛爾蘭，政治系統從集中權力到權力下放的時的深刻轉變。簡言之，我們的研究就是用實證探索一系列具體的監管指導是否對英國和分權政策的電視報道在數量和性質上有任何可量化的影響。</p><p>　　國家對商業和公共服務廣播新聞的干預 <

11、/p><p>　　對媒體內容的公共干預，更具體的說是廣播新聞很大程度上受到國家如何平衡商業和公共服務的優先級的影響。Moe和Syvertsen (2009)確定了三種公共服務傳播模式（PSB）：與北歐一些國家相類似的廣泛干預措施；一些通常僅用于保護民族文化市場的公共服務干預措施，特別是在法國、加拿大和澳大利亞；以及極少的干預措施，在這中情況下公共傳播模式并沒有被很好的創建和支持，且被認為是“商業補充資源”，而不是“作

12、為國家廣播公司” (2009:398 - 399)。雖然我們能夠說出傳播系統在國家級別的特點，但是仍然存在國家間的特殊變化，這些特殊變化因公共服務和商業渠道受到不同程度的監管而存在兩種體系?？鐕襟w的增長和商業渠道的擴展更加劇了這一點，使公共服務傳播系統生態受到削弱(Tracey, 1998)。</p><p>　　在大多數干預主義國家，國家授權的媒體壟斷了媒體行業，直到二十世紀80年代。在1980年代，新技術的

13、出現為帶來了新的機會，新的跨國媒體市場首先開發出了第一條電纜，隨之又發展了衛星傳播技術(Chalaby, 2009)。許多國家政府受到豐厚財政收入前景的驅動，開始了放松對媒體管制的過程，精簡可能阻礙經濟增長和自由媒體所有權的立法法案。二十世紀80年代，當有線電視和衛星傳播進入市場時，廣播政策隨著更廣泛的去國有化工業的政治經濟變化，接納了全球化的力量。這些情況主要發生在歐洲，傳播政策在歐洲最初是在有充足公共資金支持的環境下發展起來的。但是

14、當廣播新聞的監管仍在大多數歐洲國家被當作健康的民主文化時（Bardoel 和 D’Haenens, 2008; Cushion, 2012），很多其他國家已經允許商業傳播的發展受到較少的監管要求。</p><p>　　近幾十年以來，無線電和電視廣播領域的基礎設施迅速發展，商業廣播公司不了避免地背負上了公共服務領域的負擔，比如被要求制作上乘的地方新聞節目，而這些花費都很大。 </p><p>

15、;　　在由此產生的資金壓力下，商業廣播公司認為其公共服務義務使自身在競爭中處于劣勢地位，這也為大多數人所接受。比如，英國四大廣播公司之一的獨立電視公司長久以來一直承擔著最繁重的社會服務項目，當前其高層卻在深思熟慮要在2014年其公共服務執照過期之后減少甚至完全放棄其當地新聞廣播項目。（布朗，2011）保守黨派的杰里米亨特是新當選的文化，奧林匹克運動，媒體和體育部長，一直以來大力主張簡歷商業性質的本地新聞廣播電臺，在此之前他擱置了工黨當政

16、時的IFNCs項目，即獨立投資新聞聯合社，此項目旨在促進本地新聞傳播領域公私合作，以保證其正常運作。雖然這些以市場為導向的雄偉計劃都在不同程度上被縮減了規模，（部分委托報告質疑其商業可行性，比如2010年的Shott），這兩個項目都反映出了對于解決商業團體退出地方新聞廣播領域問題的需求。另外，英國廣播公司也面臨著又一項壓力，要求其負責向除英格蘭以外的地區傳播地方新聞熱點。</p><p>　　現在我們注意力轉移到

17、一個案例研究，那就是公共服務廣播公司BBC是如何試圖在英國權力下放的大背景下管理其新聞報道工作的，并且對比一下其電視新聞報道和商業廣播的異同，后者是在“輕微的”監管框架下運作的。</p><p><b>　　衡量干預產生的影響</b></p><p>　　作為其職權范圍的一部分，BBC廣播公司信托機構于2007年委托加的夫新聞媒體文化學校進行一項量化和質化相結合的分析

18、，課題就是BBC及其他商業電視新聞報道和權力下放體制。（Lewis 等 2008）。</p><p>　　進行這項調查的原因是有人認為BBC在進行新聞報道時對待聯合王國的四個組成部分，即英格蘭、蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭沒有做到一視同仁。說的更具體一些，BBC沒有準確地對英國的政治現實做客觀的報道。英國的國家權力已不再像以前一樣集中在倫敦，而是被下放到在蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭建立的新政府（1999年建立）手中。

19、</p><p>　　這些機構現在手握很大的權力，各自在關鍵領域，比如健康和教育等指定的政策也越來越多樣化。每個機構手中都握有不同程度的立法職責，在過去大約十年之中，這些權力進一步擴大，預計將來在財政和政策制定方面權力還將進一步下放。</p><p>　　由于商業和政府服務系統都依舊運作著覆蓋整個英國的電視新聞節目，權力下方體制使得政治問題的報道變得更具挑戰性。這一問題在我們的第一項廣播報

20、道審查（Lewis 等 2008）中已經得到體。這份報告經廣泛分析后得出結論，公共和商業廣播公司必須增大其在除英格蘭以外英國地區的新聞報道以確保更加準確屬實地反映蘇格蘭。威爾士和北愛爾蘭現在享有的權力。由于此項研究是BBC廣播公司信托機構委托的，其他商業廣播公司沒有義務對其勸告和建議進行回應。然而，此項報告中得出的結論卻引發了人們對廣播公司的討論，并且被主流和專業媒體大篇幅報道（例如 Gibson，2008）。其他商業廣播公司雖然沒有B

21、BC的公信力和社會責任，但由于這項報告的結論具有普遍意義，仍應該利用這次機會反思自身。但就像我們在結論中討論過的那樣，Ofcom（英國電信管理機構）那種缺少干預的態度和做法或許會限制其能力，使其不能更加積極地鼓勵和支持商業廣播公司對其新聞報道方式進行改革。</p><p>　　我們對2007年和10月和11月共八個星期和2009年（大約兩年后）BBC和商業電視新聞節目的實質內容進行了兩項全面的分析（在BBC信托機

22、構的干預之前）。對于BBC電視節目的分析包括1點的新聞，6點的新聞，10點的新聞，4點的新聞和BBC新聞頻道的每天新聞一小時節目（星期一到星期五下午五點到六點，星期六和星期天下午六點到七點）對于商業電視新聞節目的分析囊括了第四頻道的新聞（包括星期六和星期天），獨立電視公司10點的新聞以及其星期六和星期天的新聞，每天一小時的天氣新聞（星期一到星期五下午五點到六點，星期六和星期天下午六點到七點），一共五項，兩項分析一共研究了4794條新聞。

23、</p><p>　　研究者建立起一套標準體系來衡量新聞報道的公正性和準確性，檢驗對英國四個組成地區的報道是否平衡、準確，是否有利于人們了解新型的權力下放政府的運作。為了衡量整個英國不同地區和宗教群體的新聞報道范圍，每一條新聞的報道者和報道地點都被量化處理。</p><p>　　同時，每條新聞都被分類，以確定哪種題材的新聞占據主導地位，并且，更多處于比較的目的，衡量英國的權力下放政治體制的

24、地位和發展情況。</p><p>　　我們的研究議題很具挑戰性。由于其他三個地區很多權力與英國政府的權力重疊，權力下放的本質有時理解起來很復雜，這要求我們在解讀新聞報道時要采取更加復雜的方式，或許能使我們理解在多大程度上新聞中國這能理解和維護權力下放政治體制。這就意味著我們在進行分析時，要注重更多的發散性的細節，這與大多數新聞實質分析的要求不同，后者往往只需要進行簡單的分門別類。由于研究結果需要詳細解讀，我們在呈

25、現出結果時討論我們是如何制定出這項規則框架的。盡管如此，這項規則框架的可靠度仍然很高，分數達到90到100之間（見附錄）。能達到這樣的效果，是與大量的試驗，常規性的小組會議和不斷發展的精準并且復雜的價值觀和衡量標準分不開的。</p><p>　　為了測評BBC信托機構的干預可能產生的影響，我們寄希望于分析電視新聞，而不是理解內部那些有可能導致其新聞報道方式變革或引起觀眾對下放式報道的理解的陰謀詭計。換種說法，我們

26、沒有能力去追尋BBC管理層做出的個人決定去履行其信托機構給出的建議背后的個人或職業上的動機。我們也不能開誠布公地說，下放式報道中產生的任何變化會自動提高觀眾的知識和參與度。我們唯一能評估的就是英國最據權威和影響力的新聞機構所提供給民眾的信息的質量和本質。為了確定“傷亡人數”，我們的結論都來自于一項對BBC信托機構干預之前和之后大量新聞報道的詳細分析。我們仍然可以根據BBC管理層對第一項研究的結果做出的反應來估量電視新聞內容實質的變化。這

27、些理由很具有說服力，因為它們深入分析了BBC干預之后執行的新聞報道政策，這項干預很有可能影響了BBC電視新聞的整體理念。</p><p>　　2007年的研究表明BBC在權力下放政治體制方面的新聞報道有很多缺陷。隨后，BBC管理層表示將對其培訓和社論政策進行大規模的結構調整，在2008年7月還公布了一項行動計劃。雖然針對BBC新聞搜集方式的內部結構改革有很多看法，我們將注意力集中在四條具體的指導方針上，以從經驗角

28、度出發探索他們是否會引起新聞報道實質的變化。首先，BBC提議每條新聞都貼標簽，以反映不同程度的權力下放和每個地區不同的政治重點。因此，BBC的新聞工作者應格外注意其傳達的新聞信息是否適用于每個地區各自的實情。整體而言，每條新聞都應植根于地區特色以保證聽眾和觀眾能理解其政治意義。</p><p>　　其次，不同地區的政策差異應得到更加清楚的解釋。用BBC管理層自己的話說，這“牽扯到反映各自地區對其各自發展的不同看法

29、”。換句話說，覆蓋整個聯合王國的新聞體系應該更加精準，以抓住權力下放政治體制的復雜性和不斷變化的本質。</p><p><b>　　譯文原文出處： </b></p><p>　　Stephen Cushion ，Justin Lewis ，Gordon Neil Ramsay The impact of interventionist regulation in re

30、shaping news agendas: A comparative analysis of public and commercially funded television journalism [J].</p><p>　　Journalism , 24 January 2012: 1–19</p><p>　　The impact of interventionist regul

31、ation in reshaping news agendas: A comparative analysis of public and commercially funded television journalism</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　In recent years, many politicians, policy makers an

32、d media professionals have increasingly subscribed to the view that the regulation of broadcast media is a bureaucratic and cumbersome endeavour that inhibits creative freedom and innovation (Freedman, 2008; McChesney, 2

33、008; Wheeler, 2004). While this perspective has been widespread in the United States (US) for some time, in Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) in particular this ‘free market’ impulse to media policymaking has become mor

34、e prevale</p><p>　　This is not to suggest, of course, that effective regulatory frameworks do not remain in place or that a ‘free market’ system of broadcasting has entirely displaced public service structur

35、es. Many European Union (EU) countries, in this respect, have maintained a strong public service presence and robust regulatory frameworks. The EU, in particular, has sought to re-regulate media markets and prevent unfet

36、tered market dominance. Nevertheless, for all the re-regulatory efforts of many governments,</p><p>　　The global impact of media deregulation has been interpreted both favourably and critically by media scho

37、lars (see Bennett, 2004, for review). Since deregulation has enabled more commercial markets to flourish, Norris (2000) argues that the information environment has been enriched with the availability of a wider range of

38、media sources. The rise of commercial television news, in this context, is associated with the supply of more democratic choice since viewers are able to pick and choose from </p><p>　　While many scholars ha

39、ve been critical of a deregulated media culture, there has been less empirical attention on how re-regulation – where new regulatory requirements are established – could improve rather than impede the quality of journali

40、sm. This is partly because it has often been difficult to demonstrate how regulation – beyond a general sense of upholding standards – can enhance media content in a way that a ‘light touch’ system cannot. There has, of

41、course, been analysis of national and </p><p>　　… a change from protectionism to promotion of competition; the separation of political and operative tasks (i.e. independent regulatory authorities); the shift

42、 from vertical (sector-specific) to horizontal regulation; the transition from national to supra- and international regulation; and the change from state to self- and co-regulation in which private and societal partners

43、are becoming more actively involved in regulation.</p><p>　　Debates of this kind are often framed around the discourses of specific legislation, with an act or directive analysed generally or in fine detail

44、(Bardoel and D’Haenens, 2008; Harvey, 2006; Livingstone et al., 2007; Wheeler, 2004). What is less understood in media and journalism studies, however, is the measurable and comparative impact of different types of regul

45、atory frameworks on news coverage after media industries have been either deregulated or re-regulated.</p><p>　　In this study we draw on a comprehensive content analysis to explore a case study of how one me

46、dia regulator, the BBC Trust, attempted to reshape the news agenda of BBC news in order to make programming more accurately reflect the UK nations and its newly devolved political institutions. Television news broadcaste

47、rs in the UK have had to adapt and respond quickly to the profound shift from a centralised to a devolved political system during the last decade, when substantial powers shifted from W</p><p>　　State interv

48、entions into commercial and public service broadcast journalism</p><p>　　Public interventions into media content and, more specifically, broadcast journalism are largely shaped by how nation states balance c

49、ommercial and public service priorities. Moe and Syvertsen (2009) identify three types of public service broadcasting (PSB) models: broad interventions, associated with countries in Northern Europe; some public service i

50、ntervention, often used to protect markets in national cultures, notably France, Canada and Australia; and minimalist intervention, where PSB is n</p><p>　　In most interventionist countries, the state-mandat

51、ed structures dominated the media industries until the 1980s. At this point, new technologies opened up opportunities for new, transnational media markets to develop first cable then satellite broadcasting (Chalaby, 2009

52、). Lured by the promise of lucrative revenues, many governments began a process of deregulation, stripping back legislation that might impede growth and liberalising media ownership laws. As cable and satellite broadcast

53、ing enter</p><p>　　As a consequence, recent history has seen the decline of the national public service broadcasting model and its wider regulatory framework (Cushion, 2012; Tambini and Cowling, 2002). A pat

54、ernalistic approach to state regulation to shape programme content is difficult to sustain when, in the face of emerging commercial markets, growth, freedom and innovation are touted as the broadcasting currency of the f

55、uture. Politicians and legislators have adopted this currency, with technocratic language us</p><p>　　In more minimalist intervention countries, most strikingly the US, the lack of a meaningful public broadc

56、asting presence has meant television journalism has been subject to less regulatory oversight. Commercial broadcasters in the US are encouraged to make programmes the market demands, with minimal interference from the re

57、gulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). But even in the US this approach has not gone uncontested. During the 1960s, a market deficit of news and current affairs</p><p>　　Since the case study e

58、xplored in this article is based in the UK, it is necessary to briefly contextualise the UK’s approach to the regulation of television news. UK broadcasters operate in a both interventionist and minimalist regulatory env

59、ironment. The overarching public service structure that once defined both commercial (ITV, Channel 4) and public broadcasters (the BBC) was abandoned in the late 1980s to create a tripartite regulatory system (see Cushio

60、n, 2011). Most of the new channels wit</p><p>　　The BBC Trust defines itself as an interventionist watchdog, claiming from a public service perspective to ‘have considerable power to wield on your behalf – a

61、nd when we need to, we act quickly and decisively in your interests’ (BBC Trust website).2 By contrast, Ofcom was conceived as a ‘light touch’ regulator. While ‘light touch’ is a somewhat vague description, it signals an

62、 attempt to limit the enforcement of top-down regulation. In its statutory principles, Ofcom states ‘it will operate with</p><p>　　As the commercial infrastructure of broadcasting has grown stronger in recen

63、t decades, pressure has inevitably been exerted on commercial broadcasters with costly public service commitments such as the production of high quality local television news. These financial constraints have allowed com

64、mercial broadcasters to successfully argue that public service obligations have put them at a competitive disadvantage. So, for example, ITV – which, out of the four main commercial broadcasters in the UK</p><

65、p>　　We now turn to a case study of how a public service broadcaster – the BBC – has attempted to regulate its reporting of the nations and regions in a post-devolution UK environment and compare its television news co

66、verage with commercial broadcasters operating under a ‘light touch’ regulatory framework.</p><p>　　Measuring the impact of intervention</p><p>　　As part of its remit, the BBC Trust commissioned

67、the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies in 2007 to carry out a quantitative and qualitative analysis of BBC and commercial television news coverage of UK news and devolved politics (Lewis et al., 200

68、8). This was prompted by concerns that the BBC was not being impartial in its coverage of the four nations that make up the UK – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and, more specifically, that it was not acc

69、urately rep</p><p>　　Since both commercial and public service channels continue to operate UK-wide news television bulletins, devolution has made the reporting of politics and political issues far more chall

70、enging for journalists. This was reflected in our first review of broadcast coverage of the nations (Lewis et al., 2008), which broadly concluded that the public and commercial broadcasters needed to considerably increas

71、e their coverage beyond England to more accurately report the political powers Scotland, Wales</p><p>　　We carried out a comprehensive content analysis of BBC and commercial television bulletins gathered dur

72、ing eight-week periods in October and November 2007 (before the BBC Trust’s intervention) and in 2009 (approximately two years later). For BBC television, this included BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, BBC News at Ten,

73、BBC News (BBC One Saturday and Sunday afternoons),4 and one hour per day of the BBC News Channel (5–6p.m. Monday–Friday, 6–7p.m. Saturday, Sunday). For commercial television, th</p><p>　　The coding frame was

74、 developed to assess impartiality and accuracy, exploring whether coverage of the four nations was balanced, accurate and helpful in understanding the new political world of devolved government. To measure the extent of

75、coverage across the nations and regions in the UK, the story and reporter location of every news item was quantified. At the same time, every news item was categorised into story subjects to establish which stories domin

76、ated and, more for comparative purposes,</p><p>　　Our research objectives were challenging. The nature of devolution can be complex, since many powers overlap with Westminster, requiring us to adopt a more s

77、ophisticated interpretative framework that might allow us to appreciate the degree to which journalists understand and represent devolved politics. This meant a significantly greater level of discursive detail than that

78、required by most forms of content analysis, which are often limited to measuring simple categories. We discuss how we coded</p><p>　　In examining the potential impact of the BBC Trust’s intervention, our app

79、roach is consigned to the analysis of television news as opposed to understanding the internal machinations that might have led to changes within its journalism or in how viewers understand devolved coverage. We are not

80、able, in other words, to explore the personal or professional motives behind individual decisions by BBC management to execute the recommendations of the BBC Trust. Nor can we claim that any shifts in the n</p>&l

81、t;p>　　Following the 2007 research – which suggested a number of shortcomings in the BBC’s coverage of post-devolution politics – the BBC management suggested a wide range of structural changes to its training and edit

82、orial policy, with the full management response including an action plan published in July 2008.6 While there were many different recommendations about changing the internal structures that shape BBC news gathering, we f

83、ocus on four specific guidelines in order to empirically explore whet</p><p>　　Second, policy differences between nations should be more clearly explained. In the BBC management’s own words, this ‘involves r

84、eflecting different perspectives from the nations on particular policy developments’. The UK-wide news network, in other words, should be communicated more accurately to capture the complexity and changing nature of devo