跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.23.193) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/24 12:56
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:周佳勲
研究生(外文):Chia-Hsun Chou
論文名稱:環境新聞產製與數位公共領域以台灣野放鯨鯊事件為研究案例
論文名稱(外文):Environmental News Manufacturing and Digital Public Sphere: A Case Study about Releasing Whale Shark in Taiwan
指導教授:林照真林照真引用關係
口試委員:林麗雲林子倫
口試日期:2014-07-30
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:新聞研究所
學門:傳播學門
學類:新聞學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:使用者自製內容海洋新聞傳統媒體數位公共領域環境新聞
外文關鍵詞:Digital Public SphereEnvironmental NewsOcean NewsTraditional MediaUser-generated Content
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:176
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
2013年3月11日,環保團體要求台灣屏東海生館應儘快野放二號鯨鯊,因鯨鯊體型過大,已不適合繼續在水缸裡。7月11日,海生館野放二號鯨鯊失敗,引起社會大眾關注與批評。不僅主流媒體報導,數位網路空間的議題討論也蓬勃發展,有人替鯨鯊成立了野放粉絲團,也有人分享自己的專業知識。

本研究採取文本分析法探討《聯合報》、《中國時報》、《自由時報》、《蘋果日報》與中央通訊社在九年內對於屏東海生館曾飼養三隻鯨鯊的報導,呈現傳統報紙的報導脈絡;並且以質化分析法和深度訪談法關心數位網路內容產製者們,在二號鯨鯊野放事件的期間,如何運用數位媒介來參與產製、整理資訊以及涉入互動討論,以討論數位公共領域構成的可能性。

研究發現,五大傳統媒體的新聞偏愛人情趣味角度,動物保育的觀點遲至2013年才出現,而且報導缺乏科學觀點和政策法律的探討。而二號鯨鯊事件中,網路上內容產製者們提供不同於主流媒體的觀點、對主流媒體並不完全信任、重視理性辯論、與其他網友的關係不再虛擬,而且,網路的傳播力量也日益增強。因此,本研究認為網際網路確實能形成數位公共領域。


On March 11, 2013, the environmental group asked the National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium to release the whale shark due to the size limit of the fish tank. After four month, the releasing of the whale shark led by the National Museum of Marine Biology Aquarium had failed, raising public attention and criticism. Not only did the mainstream media report the incident, there were a number of discussions took place on the Internet.

Based on text analysis, the research analyzed news of the three whale sharks raised by National Museum of Marine Biology Aquarium in the past 9 years from the United Daily News, China Times, Liberty Times, Apple Daily News and Central National Agency to see how the whale sharks were presented by mainstream media. Furthermore, the research used qualitative research method and depth interview method to focus on how the digital users created their content, gathered the information, and interacted with others to see if it is possible that a digital public sphere is formed.

The results show that the five traditional mainstream media are prone to apply human interest prospective into the stories. And, the animal protection prospective shows only until 2013. Also, the stories are lack of science and law point of views. On the other hand, the results also indicate that digital users provide different point of views than the mainstream media, and they have don’t trust the mainstream media entirely. Moreover, digital users value reasonable debate and some of their relations turn from virtual to real. Finally, the propaganda power of the digital sphere is strengthening gradually. Therefore, the digital public sphere is formed through the discussion of the public.


第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究問題 5
第三節 研究設計 6
第二章 相關文獻回顧 7
第一節 環境傳播 7
一、媒體與環境新聞 7
二、環境傳播的報導與困境 10
第二節 數位公共領域 12
一、媒體與公共領域 12
二、網際網路與數位公共領域 16
第三節 新媒體時代與網路科技 22
一、科技與媒體 22
二、閱聽人從消極接受到積極產製 23
三、業餘者的傳播力量 25
第三章 研究方法 27
第一節 五個主流媒體內容產製的文本分析 27
第二節 參與者產製內容的質化分析 28
第三節 數位內容產製者的深入訪談法 29
第四章 研究結果與分析 32
第一節 五大媒體之屏東海生館鯨鯊報導 32
一、觀點與角度 33
二、研究發現與現象觀察 36
三、小結 41
第二節 網路公共領域分析 42
一、內容產製者提供主流媒體缺乏的觀點 45
二、內容產製者對主流媒體不完全信任 47
三、內容產製者互動理性 52
四、內容產製者間關係不再虛擬 56
五、網路日益增強的傳播力量 57
六、小結 61
第五章 結論 62
第一節 研究結論 63
第二節 研究限制 64
第三節 研究建議 65
參考書目 67


王泰俐(2004a)。〈電視新聞節目「感官主義」之初探研究〉,《新聞學研究》,81: 1-41。
王泰俐(2004b)。《電視新聞「感官主義」之初探研究》。(國科會專題研究計畫成果報告,NSC 92-2412-H-004-024)。台北:政治大學新聞系。
行政院環境保護署(2002)。《91年度民眾、學生環保知識調查》(編號:EPA-91-E103-02-105)。台北:作者。
行政院環境保護署(2003)。《92年度民眾、學生環保知識調查》(編號:EPA-92-E103-02-101)。台北:作者。
行政院環境保護署(2005)。《94年度民眾、學生環保知識調查》(編號:EPA-94-E103-02-104)。台北:作者。
行政院環境保護署(2006)。《95年度民眾、學生環保知識調查》(編號:EPA-95-E103-02-313)。台北:作者。
行政院農業委員會(2001)。《鯨鯊資源之管理與漁獲通報制度》。〈農政與農情〉。109。取自http://www.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=1979
李丁讚(2004)。〈導論:市民社會與公共領域在台灣的發展〉,李丁讚(編),《公共領域在台灣 – 困境與契機》,頁1-62。台北:桂冠圖書。
李卉婷、陳宏銘、戴安瑋(2013年7月11日)。〈2度擱淺粗魯野放海生館『害死鯨鯊』〉,《蘋果日報》,A9版。
林宇玲(2014)。〈網路宇公共領域:從審議模式轉向多元公眾模式〉,《新聞學研究》,118: 55-85。
林俊義(1989)。《綠色種籽在台灣:一九八八綠色和平報告》。台北:前衛出版社。
林照真(2009)。《收視率新聞學:台灣電視新聞商品化》。台北:聯經。
林照真(2011)。〈環境傳播與媒體公共領域〉,《綠色思潮與環境政治研討會論文集》,頁14-1-22。台北:中央研究院歐美研究所。
林照真(2013)。〈台灣電視新聞之災難報導:以「莫拉克」風災為例〉,《新聞學研究》,115: 141-185。
袁方(編)。(2002)。《社會研究方法》。臺北:五南。
席汝楫(1997)。《社會與行為科學研究方法》。臺北:五南。
莊守正、徐華遜、劉光明(2010)〈海洋中溫柔的巨人 – 鯨鯊〉,《科學發展》,452: 42-46,取自http://scitechvista.nsc.gov.tw/zh-tw/Articles/C/0/1/10/1/1449.htm
唐維敏譯(1996)。《大眾傳播研究方法》。台北:五南。(原書 Jensen, K.B. & Jankowski, N.W. [1991]. A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. NY: Routledge.)
野生動物保育小組(2002)。〈鯊魚「保育」在台灣〉,《台灣動物之聲》,30: 17-22。
陳哲聰、劉光明、莊守正(1997)。《台灣鯨鯊捕獲量調查》。台灣的鯊魚捕獲與貿易台北野生物調查委員會。取自http://www.wow.org.tw/layout.php?type=page&id=134
陳曉宜(2005)。《報社記者抵抗資源之研究》。國立政治大學傳播學院碩士在職專班碩士學位論文。
彭芸(2008)。《21世紀新聞學與新聞學研究》,台北:雙葉書廊有限公司。
黃光玉、劉念夏、陳清文譯。(2004)。《媒介與傳播研究方法:質化與量話研究途徑》。臺北:風雲論壇。(原書Arthur A. Berger [2000]. Media and Communication Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. SAGE Publications)
張錦華等譯(1995)。《傳播符號學理論》。台北:遠流。(原書Fiske, J. [1990]. Introduction to Communication Studies. NY: Routledge.)
張錦華(2010)。《傳播批判理論:從解構到主體(增修版)》。台灣:黎明文化。
〈想念海洋 水缸不是牠的家!保育團體要海生館 解放鯨鯊!不准再抓!〉(2013年3月15日)。取自於台灣動物社會研究會網頁http://www.east.org.tw/that_content.php?id=436
楊紹華、燕珍宜等(2011年3月28日)。〈台灣輸不起的風險 – 核電馬政府能源政策總檢視〉。《今周刊》,744:62-79。
趙碧華、朱美珍編譯。(1995)。《研究方法-社會工作暨人文科學領域的運用》。臺北:雙葉書廊。(原書Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. [1993]. Research Methods for Social Work. Cengage Learning)
潘建志(2013年7月11日)。〈海生館野放鯨鯊 動保怒批棄屍〉,《中國時報》,A6版。
蔡宗憲(2013年3月11日)。〈鯨鯊六米長 海生館擬今年也放〉,《自由時報》,A14A版。
劉人偉(2007年3月15日)。〈員工爆料 海生館棄養鯨鯊〉,《蘋果日報》,LN06版。
劉慧雯(2008)。〈網際網路的公共領域角色的反思:以東海劈腿事件與鴻海打壓新聞自由事件為例〉,《新聞學研究》,97: 45-81。
蘇蘅(2001)。〈報紙新聞「小報化」的趨勢分析〉,行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。取自http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/3658/1/892412H004031.pdf
〈籲請政府全面禁補鯨鯊 並列為保育類動物〉(2006)。取自關懷動物生命協會網頁取自http://www.lca.org.tw/avot/451


Albramson, J.B., C.F. Arterton and G.R. Orren. (1988). The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics. New York: Basic Books.
Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and post-modernism approaches to organizational studies. In Clegg, S. et al. (Eds.), In: Handbook of Organization Studies. (pp. 191-217). Sage, London.
Anderson, A. (1997). Media, culture, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Arendt, H. (1988). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Asen, R. (2000). Seeking the ‘counter’ in counterpublics. Communication Theory, 10(4), 424-446.
Beckett, C. (2008). SuperMedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save The World. MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bergstrom, A. (2008). The Reluctant Audience: Online Participation in the Swedish Journalistic Context. Westminster Papers In Communication and Culture, 5(2): 60-80.
Bohman, J. (2004). Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy. The Sociological Review, 52, 131-155.
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boykoff, M. T. (2009). We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the Environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 431-457.
Boykoff, M. & T, Roberts. (2007). Climate change and human development – risk and vulnerability in a warming world: Media coverage of climate change – current trends, strengths and weaknesses. United Nations Development Program Human Development Reports 2007.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Bruns, A. (2008). Life beyond the public sphere: Towards a networked model for political deliberation. Information Polity, 13(1-2), 65-79.
Cammaerts, B. (2006). Citizenship, the public sphere and media. In B. Cammaerts & N. Carpentier (Eds.), Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and expanding democratic media roles (pp. 1-8). Bristol, UK: Intellect.
Carey, J.W. (1998) The Internet and the End of the National Communications System: Uncertain Predictions of an Uncertain Future. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 75(1): 28.
Chapman J. (2005). A Comparative Media History: An Introduction: 1789 to the present. London: Polity
Chen, V.Y & Phipps, M.J. (2002). Management and trade of whale sharks in Taiwan. A TREFFIC East Asia REPORT. Retrieved from file:///Users/apple/Downloads/traffic_species_fish9.pdf
Cleary, J., & Bloom, T. (2011). Gatekeeping at the Portal: An Analysis of Local Television Websites'' User-Generated Content. Electronic News, 5(2), 93-111.
Clift, S. (2003). Democratic evolution or virtual civil war. Paper presented at the Promise of E-Democracy WSIS Event, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved 2 February 2014 from http://www.publicus.net/articles/democraticevolution.html.
Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahlberg, L. (2001a). Democracy via Cyberspace: Mapping the Rhetorics and Practices of Three Prominent Camps. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157-177.
Dahlberg, L. (2001b). The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615-633.
Dahlberg, L. (2007a). The Internet and Discursive Exclusion: From Deliberative to Agonistic Public Sphere Theory. In Dahlberg, L. & Siapera, E. (Eds.), Radical Democracy and the Internet: Interrogating Theory and Practice. (pp. 128-147). USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dahlberg, L. (2007b). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47-64.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.
Dahlgren, P. (2010). Public Spheres, Societal Shifts and Media Modulations. In Gripsrud, J. & Weibull, L. (Eds.), Media, Markets & Public Spheres: European media at the crossroads. (pp. 19-36). UK, Chicago, USA: Intellect Bristol.
Dean, J. (2003). Why the net is not a public sphere. Constellations, 10(1), 95-112.
Deluca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442.
Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow Press.
Eden, S, Donaldson, A & Walker, G. (2006). Green groups and gray areas: scientific boundary-work, non- governmental organizations and environmental knowledge. Environmental and Planning A. 38:1061-76.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1143-1168.
Fenton, N., & Downey, J. (2003). Counter public spheres and global modernity.
Javnost/The Public, 10(1), 15-32.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
Friedman, S. M. (2004). And the beat goes on: The third decade of environmental journalism. In S. Senecah (Eds.), The environmental communication yearbook: Volume 1 (pp. 175-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gillmor, D. (2004). We the media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People. Sebastopol CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
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.
Greenberg, M. R., Sachsman, D.B., Sandman, P. M., & Salome, K.L. (1989). Network evening news coverage of environmental risk. Risk Analysis, 9(1): 119-126.
Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: an encyclopedia article, New German Critique, 1(3), pp. 49-55.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hansen, A. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media Culture Society, 13(4), 443-458.
Hansen, A. (2010). Environment, media and communication. London & NY: Rouledge.
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.
Harbinson R., Mugara R., Chawla A. (2006). Whatever the Weather: Media Attitudes to Reporting on Climate Change. London: Panos Inst.
Has Democracy a Future? (1997, September 1). Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 6, 2014, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53389/arthur-m-schlesinger-jr/has-democracy-a-future
Hass, T., & Steiner, L. (2001). Public journalism as a journalism of publics: Implications of the Habermas-Fraser debate for public journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 123-147.
Hays, S. P. (1987). Beauty, health and permanence: Environmental politics in the United States, 1955-1985. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heng, M. S. H., & De Moor, A. (2003). From Habermas''s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 331-352.
Hermida, Alfred, Fred Fletcher, Darryl Korell, and Donna Logan. (2012). Share, Like, Recommend:Decoding the Social Media News Consumer. Journalism Studies, 13: 815-824.
Holliman, R. (2011). Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ''climategate'' for science journalism and public debate in the digital age. Journalism, 12(7), 832-846.
Holton, A.E., Coddington,M.,& de Zuniga,H.G.(2013). Whose news? whose value:
Citizen journalism and journalistic values through the lens of content creators
and consumers. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 720-737.
Hurwitz, R. (1999). Who Needs Politics? Who Needs People? The Ironies of Democracy in Cyberspace. Contemporary Sociology. 28(6): 655-661.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.
New York: New York University Press.
Johnson, Kirsten A., and Susan Wiedenbeck. (2009). Enhancing Perceived Credibility of Citizen Journalism Web Sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86: 332-348.
Jönsson, A. M., & Örnebring, H. (2011). User-Generated Content and the News. Journalism Practice, 5(2), 127-144.
Koçan, G. (2008). Models of public sphere in political philosophy. Eursosphere Working Paper Series 2. Retrieved from http://eurospheres.org/files/2010/08/Eurosphere_Working_Paper_2_Kocan.pdf
Karppinen, K. (2007a). In making a difference to media pluralism: a critique of the pluralistic consensus in European media policy. In B. Cammaerts & N. Carpentier (Eds.), Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and democratic media roles (pp. 9-30). Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, M.A. & Solomon, N. (1990). Unreliable sources: A guide to detecting bias in new media. New York: Carol Publishing Group.
Lester, L. (2010). Media & Environment. MA: Polity.
Levy, S. (2007, August 27). Facebook grows up. Newsweek, pp. 40-46.
Lewis, S.C., Kaufhold, K., & Lasorsa, D.L.(2010). Thinking about citizen journalism:
The philosophical and practical challenges of user-generated content for community newspaper. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 163-179.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Lippman, W. (1922). Public Opinion, New York: Macmillan.
Moe, H. (2009). Online media participation and the transformation of the public sphere: Moving beyond the fragmentation debate. Retrieved from http://www.hm.uib.no/files/Moe_AoIR.pdf
Murch, A. W. (1971). Public Concern for Environmental Pollution. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 35(1), 100-106.
Nah, Seungahn, and Deborah S. Chung. (2012). When Citizens Meet Both Professional and Citizen Journalists: Social Trust, Media Credibility, and Perceived Journalistic Roles among Online Community News Readers. Journalism, 13: 714-730.
Neuberger, C.& Nuernbergk, C.(2010).Competition, complementarity or integration? The relationship between professional and participatory media. Journalism Practice, 4(3), pp. 319-332.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Participative New and User-Created Content: Web 2.0 Wikis and Social Networking. France, Paris. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://www.oecd.org/sti/38393115.pdf
Ornebring, H. (2008). The Consumer As Producer - of What? Journalism Studies, 9: 771-785.
Owens, L., & Palmer, L. K. (2003). Making the news: Anarchist counter-public relations on the World Wide Web. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(4), 335-361.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The self online: Theutility of personal home pages. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46: 346-368.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society, 4(1), 9-27.
Parker, G. (2009). Wave 4: Power to the people. New York, NY: Universal McCann. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://www.slideshare.net/IN2marcom/power-to-the-people-wave-4-social-media-study-by-universal-mccann
Pavlik, J.V. (2001). Journalism and new media. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Poell, T. (2009). Conceptualizing forums and blogs as public sphere. In M. V. T. van den Boomen et al. (Eds.), Digital material: Tracing new media in everyday life and technology (pp. 239-251). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
Poster, M. (2001). What’s the Matter With the Internet? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Purcell, Kristen, Lee Rainie, Amy Mitchell, Tom Rosenstiel, and Kenny Olmstead. (2010). Understanding the Participatory News Consumer. Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Online-News.aspx.
Roony, D. (2000). Thirty years of competition in the British tabloid press: The Mirror and the Sun. In Sparks, Colin & Tulloch, John (eds.)(2000). Tabloid tales-Global debates over media standards(pp. 285-300). Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Public INC.
Rosen, Jay. (2006). The People Formerly Known As the Audience. PressThink. Retrieved from http://archive. pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.
Ruban, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schoenfeld, A, Meier, R & Griffin, R. (1979). Constructing a social problem: the press and the environment. 
Social Problem. 27(1): 38–61.
Shapiro, A. (1999). The Control Revolution. New York: Century Foundation.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Singer, E. & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disaster, and other hazards. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Singer, J. B. (2005). The political j-blogger: ''Normalizing'' a new media form to fit old norms and practices. Journalism, 6(2), 173-198.
Singer, J. B. (2006). The socially responsible existentialist: A normative emphasis for journalists in a new media environment. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 2-18.
Smith, C. (1992). Media and Apocalypse: News coverage of the Yellowstone forest fires, Exxon Valdez oil spill, and Loma Prieta earthquake. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s role in campaign 2008. Retrieved from http://web.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2009/The_internets_role_in_campaign_2008.pdf
Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tichenor, P., G.A. Donohue., C.N. Olien., J.K. Bowers. (1973). Environment and Public Opinion.. In Schoenfeld. (Eds.), Interpreting Environmental Issues. (pp. 217-215). Madison, WI: DERS.
Thompson, J.B. & Held, D. (1982). Habermas: Critical Debates. (Eds.) MacMillan, London.
Trenholm, S. (1999). Thinking through communication: An introduction to the study of human communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Walther, J.B., Carr, C.T., Choi, S.S.W., DeAndrea, D.C., Kim, J., Tong, S.T.,& vander Heide, B.(2011). International of Interpersonal, peer, and media influence source online: A research agenda for technology convergence. In Z. Papacharissi(ed), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites.(pp.17-38) New York and London: Routledge.
Web, B., & Webb, S. (1932). Methods of Social Study. London: Longmans Green.
Weingart, P, Engels, A & Pansesgrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in 
science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understaning of Science. 9:261-283.
Wunsch-Vincent, Sacha, and Graham Vickery. (2007). Participative Web: User-generated Content. Report prepared for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Retrieved from http:www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf.
Zhang, W., Johnson, T.J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S.L. (2010). The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 28: 75-92.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top