東方、西方、全球普同： 新聞論述中的拉薩事件報導比較

全球化時代，媒體本應扮演各國化解歧見之橋樑，而透過國際新聞所呈現之國家形象，亦可謂一國之重要資產。故每當重大國際事件發生時，相關國家及反映該國立場之主流媒體莫不互爭話語權，國家固藉此進行攻防，閱聽人亦可管窺新聞報導背後的思維與框架。本研究以2008年3月14日發生於中國西藏首府拉薩的動亂事件為標的，選定中國《人民日報》海外版、台灣《中國時報》，及美國《紐約時報》，探究三者對此事件的呈現手法，瞭解其中是否有特定之宣傳模式與框架設定？是否出現框架競爭與話語鬥爭現象？並進一步探討隱含的民族國家利益之爭與東西文化價值落差。本研究鎖定兩關鍵時間點，一為事件發生初期，一為「京奧」聖火傳遞期間，總計197則報導。研究方法兼採框架分析與內容分析，並分別以量化及質化方式呈現。研究發現，紐約時報聚焦全球化框架，立論持平，並無「反共過濾器」；人民日報凸顯衝突框架，將動亂歸責於達賴集團，全無與國際對話接軌之能力；中國時報則慣將「2T」（Taiwan & Tibet）議題並置，馴化手法明顯。

關鍵字

全球化；「3‧14」事件；宣傳模式；框架設定；馴化

並列摘要

In the era of globalization, the media is supposed to act as a means of communication for countries to reconcile differences. The international image of a country is also a key national asset. As such, whenever a major event takes place, the countries involved and their leading media invariably compete for definitive interpretation. Countries may launch attacks or mount defenses. The audiences may thereby get a glimpse of the ideological framework underpinning the reported stories. This study focuses on the 3-14 Riots in Lhasa, 2008. Three media—China’s People’s Daily, Taiwan’s China Times, and New York Times—are chosen for a comparative analysis to see if propaganda model and framing devices have taken parts and if traces of discursive struggles can be detected. This study aimed at two periods: days immediately after the incident and days when Olympics torch relay ran its course. A total of 197 reports are selected. With framing / content analysis as methodological choice, the findings are presented in quantitative and qualitative terms. This study finds that the New York Times focus on globalization framing and is free from anticommunism filtering; the People’s Daily highlights conflict framing and wrongly blames “Dalai Clique”; the China Times juxtaposes 「2T」issues, apparently with an intention toward domestication.