解析文化創意產業的媒體神話－Van Gorp框架化分析取徑

Exploring the Media Myth of Cultural and Creative Industries-Using Van Gorp's Approach to Framing Analysis

劉蕙苓(Huei-Ling LIU)

《傳播與社會學刊》 58期 (2021/10) Pp. 99-133

https://doi.org/10.30180/CS.202110_(58).0005

摘要

本研究以Van Gorp「框架包裹」取徑分析2010－2016年之文化創意產業相關新聞，探究媒體框架隱含之社會文化現象，藉此反思媒體在文化公共領域的角色。在分析3,445則新聞發現，媒體透過不同的框架化過程，將社會主流的經濟價值嵌入新聞內容中，把文創產業建構成為台灣文化沒落與產業瓶頸的有效「解方」；呈現在新聞中的文化價值與經濟價值雖有拉鋸仍居弱勢。批判反思之對立框架雖然存在，但影響有限。透過經年累月的儀式性報導，媒體與社會文化交互影響，建構了文創產業的「神話」，也提供它成為社會流行的基礎。然而，本研究發現媒體相關論述乃強化主流意識形態，並未提供多元、理性溝通，媒體作為文化公共領域中介顯然不足。

關鍵字

文化創意產業 ； 框架化分析 ； 框架包裹 ； 意識形態 ； 文化公共領域

並列摘要

Based on the media's role in the cultural public sphere, this study explores the hidden social and cultural phenomena of media framing using Van Gorp's approach to framing analysis to examine news about cultural and creative industries. The results of the analysis of 3,445 news items publicized between 2010 and 2016 showed that through various media framing processes, economic value, as the social mainstream, was embedded in news content, which served to construct cultural and creative industries. This economic value led to the revitalization of culture in Taiwan and provided an effective solution to the bottlenecks encountered in other industries. In the fluctuating emphases on cultural and economic values in news content, the latter were usually privileged. The counter frame of critical reflection existed, but its impact was limited. The findings also suggested that a myth of cultural and creative industries was constructed through the repetition of news disclosures and interactions between the media and social culture, thus preparing the ground for its popularity. The results indicate a lack of pluralistic and rational communication, although media discourses seemed to have strengthened the mainstream ideology. Thus, the role of media as a public mediator in the cultural public sphere has not been satisfactory.

並列關鍵字

cultural and creative industry ； framing analysis ； frame package ； ideology ； culture and public sphere

參考文獻

王志弘（2012）。〈新文化治理體制與國家─社會關係：剝皮寮的襲產化〉。《世新人文社會學報》，第13期，頁31–70。Wang Zhihong (2012). Xin wenhua zhili tizhi yu guojia—Shehui guanxi: Bopiliao de xichan hua. Shixin renwen shehui xuebao, 13, 31–70.

王佳煌（2010）。〈文化／創意產業、創意階級／城市論著的批判性檢視〉。《思與言》，第48卷第1期，頁131–190。Wang Jiahuang (2010). Wenhua/chuangyi chanye, chuangyi jieji/chengshi lunzhu de pipanxing jianshi. Si yu yan, 48(1), 131–190.

王俐容（2005）。〈文化政策中的經驗論述：從菁英到文化經濟？〉。《文化研究》，第1期，頁169–195。Wang Lirong (2005). Wenhua zhengce zhong de jingyan lunshu: Cong jingying dao wenhua jingji? Wenhua yanjiu, 1, 169–195.

台灣文化部（2010）。〈文化創意產業發展法〉。取自台灣文化部網站，https://www.moc.gov.tw/information_306_19693.html。Taiwan wenhua bu (2010). Wenhua chuangyi chanye fazhan fa. Taiwan wenhua bu wangzhan. Retrieved from https://www.moc.gov.tw/information_306_19693.html.

行政院經濟建設委員會（2002）。《挑戰2008：國家發展重點計劃（2002–2007）》。台北：行政院經濟建設委員會。Xingzheng yuan jingji jianshe weiyuan hui (2002). Tiaozhan 2008: Guojia fazhan zhongdian jihua (2002–2007). Taibei: Xingzheng yuan jingji jianshe weiyuanhui.