危機傳播策略-比較政府處理2009年及2012年美國牛肉事件的危機傳播策略

Crisis Communication: The Ma Government's Crisis Communication of US Beef's Case Study in 2009 and 2012

謝於純(Yu-Chun Hsieh)

指導教授 ： 蕭全政

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.01992

摘要

自2003年美國爆發第一起狂牛症以來，政府曾對美國牛肉兩次禁止，又兩次解禁，再加上瘦肉精的因素，台灣對於美國牛肉的開放幅度，在錯綜複雜的國際政經情勢與國內政治情勢的交錯下，如何處理「美牛」問題，已成為政府執政的重要課題。
為進一步了解馬政府在2009年及2012年處理美國牛事件時的處理過程與對外溝通方式，本文以兩次開放美國牛肉進口的「危機傳播」做為研究主題，透過個案研究方式，進一步馬政府在2009年及2012處理美國牛肉進口爭議的危機處理過程為何；其對外傳播策略為何？若就媒體觀點來看，不同的危機傳播策略的媒體效能為何；比較馬政府在處理兩次擴大開放美國牛肉進口事件的媒體傳播策略的不同，並試圖從中提出政府未來面對重大事件或議題進行危機傳播的建議。

關鍵字

美國牛肉 ； 危機 ； 危機傳播 ； 危機溝通 ； 傳播

並列摘要

Since 2003, the imports of US beef have been abandoned twice because first the mad cow disease was found and then the ractopamine was detected. However, the complex political and economic relations between US and Taiwan, even within Taiwan, have led the issues more controversial and hard to make a consensus. Taiwan government, led by President Ma Ying-Jeou, has suffered the tension and conflicts from external and internal pressure. The US forced Taiwan to accept the import of US beef, and many people in Taiwan asked Ma government to resist the pressure. How should Ma government respond to the crisis caused by contentious struggles? This paper aims to reflect Ma government’s twice communication crisis of US beef imports and tries to find some useful lessons.

In fact, there is something similar and something different in the two times which Ma government dealt with the open of imports of US beef in 2009 and 2012.In difference, in year 2009, the contention lay in the worry of mad cow disease which happened in 2003 in the US. In year 2012, the controversial issue changed to the problem of containing the ractopamine.In the same element, both times have led civil groups, opposite party and even the ruling party members to resist controversially. Su Chi, the Secretary of National Security Council, was regarded as President Ma’s close colleague by the media, but resigned because the crisis of US beefs. In year 2012, the opposite party, Democratic Progress Party has asked its Legislators to stand by in the Legislative Yuan for 120 hours, which is the longest ever, in order to boycott the bill of US beef and did not allow the chairman of the Legislator Yuan to anchor the meeting.
Moreover, different media comments all indicated that Ma government has made several mistakes to communicate with people and lack of communicative ability in the importing issue. The imports of US beef might be regarded as the most serious of crisis communication of Ma government since 2008 coming to power.
In order to understand the dealing process and ways of communication in which Ma government faced the twice importing issues of US beef, this paper analyzes the twice open events by the perspective of “crisis communication”. I hope to compare these two cases of Ma government and try to offer some reflective comments.

並列關鍵字

US beef ； Crisis Management ； Crisis Communication ； Political Public Relation ； Political Communication

參考文獻

姚惠忠、汪睿祥，2008，<選舉危機情境分類之探討>，《選舉研究》，第十五卷第二期，頁67-90。

黃之棟、黃瑞祺，2012，<光說不安全是不夠的：美牛風險、管制理論與政策選擇>，《國家與社會》，第九期，頁151-188。

黃富源、侯友宜，20025，《談判與危機處理》，台北：元照。

溫偉群、游梓翔，2010，<八八水災救災過程中馬團隊對外傳播的檢討與啟示>，《選舉評論》，第八期，頁1-18。

雷立芬，2009，<拒買比修法、公投更有意義，因應放寬美國牛肉進口標準>，《海峽評論》，第228期，頁58-59。