臺灣基因醫學新聞內容特色與品質分析（2001-2011年）

本研究探討臺灣媒體的基因醫學報導特色、趨勢與訊息品質的優缺點，並比較媒體間差異。透過對4 家主流報紙《中國時報》、《聯合報》、《蘋果日報》與《自由時報》2001 年初至2011 年底間基因醫學相關新聞的內容分析，本研究發現11 年來報導數量整體呈現減少趨勢，當出現基因醫學爭議事件時報導數量才會大幅增加。儘管各報間小有差異，基因醫學報導以「新知資訊」為最常呈現的主軸。在主要消息來源方面，「專業人士」引用最多。在基因醫學新聞報導品質缺點方面，各報所占比例皆低，且無明顯差異，其中又以「未整理消息來源話語」與「消息來源身分不清」比例較高，但也僅占2% 左右。各媒體報導優點表現比例不見得皆高，四報都有九成以上新聞會「加以解釋重要名詞」，其次則有五成以上會「清楚說明科學內容」，而「提及事件背景脈絡」及「提及風險相關爭議」的表現則占四成或四成以下。除了「提及風險相關爭議」一類外，其餘各優點類別均有統計顯著的媒體差異。本研究最後依據研究發現提出新聞實務可強化科學新聞報導深度與品質的可行方案，包括發展審議式新聞報導方式、增設科學專題報導獎項、提供教育訓練等，期冀提昇新聞工作者科學素養以增進民眾對科學議題的認識與參與。

關鍵字

內容分析；科學新聞；科學傳播；基因醫學

並列摘要

This study aims to analyze and evaluate how issues related to genetic medicine are covered in the Taiwanese news media. A quantitative content analysis was performed on four mainstream newspapers, United Daily, China Times, Liberty Times, and Apple Daily from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2011. Analyses revealed a decline in relevant genetic medicine news over the study period, except when controversial issues emerged. Genetic medicine news coverage focused largely on topics related to ＂new knowledge and information＂ and relied mostly on expert sources. Among the four newspapers, there were strengths and weaknesses in the various criteria considered sufficient and necessary for evaluating news quality of science reports. Generally, low proportions of weaknesses were found. Even the highest two categories, ＂reducing reporting to quoting＂ and ＂unclear identity of news source＂ comprised only about 2% of the total number of news stories. However, genetic medicine news coverage varied in terms of its strengths. More than 90% of the stories explained important terminology while more than half clearly illustrated scientific content. Only about 40% of the stories mentioned the background and context of the events while less than 40% mentioned risk-related controversies. These results revealed differences in genetic medicine news reporting among various media outlets. Based on the findings, suggestions have been provided as to how science news reporting practices can be improved, such as developing deliberative reporting, encouraging journalists and news media through the offering of more awards for science feature stories, and providing in-service training for science journalists.