本研究探討台灣政治立場不同的兩大平面媒體—《聯合報》與《自由時報》報導瘦肉精肉品安全風險新聞時再現何種論述框架,背後呈現何種社會意義?而政黨輪替前後媒體所再現的框架論述出現何種變化?兩大報呈現的框架論述是否有差異?本研究以框架分析途徑,輔以內容分析法,比較兩大報2007年7月至9月、2012年1月至3月兩個瘦肉精新聞高峰期的新聞報導。發現報導中出現經貿發展、食品安全爭議、責任歸屬,以及政治工具四個主要框架;立場不同的兩大報,隨著政黨輪替,框架論述也出現很大變化。足見媒體框架有其社會脈絡,且是會隨社會變遷而變化的動態過程。透夠本研究能深入思考隱藏在新聞文本中的權力互動,避免被議題操弄,才能有效作好食品安全風險評估。
The thesis used framing analysis as the main research method and content analysis as the subsidiary research method to analyze the two different newspapers in Taiwan, including United Daily News and Liberty Times, which are different political statement from each other. The study object is to explore how the two different newspapers represented the food safety and health risk issue with regard to the lifting Ractopamine ban in Taiwan during the periods between September 2007 and January 2012 that Taiwan’s government for allowing imports of American beef containing the residues of Ractopamine. The framing analysis of the results present four main framing package: the development of economy and trading, the controversy of food safety, Liability /Accountability, and political instruments. The framing in discourse varies between the United Daily News and Liberty Times as a result of their different viewpoints. Moreover, the framing in discourse between two newspapers changes drastically accompanied by party alternation in power. Therefore, the media framing is a dynamic process.