西方国家主流媒体“中国国防透明度”报道研究

近年来,西方国家主流媒体关于"中国国防透明度"的新闻报道及认可程度并未因为中国国防透明度的显著提升而出现"正向相关"。通过对相关数据的采集和分析可以看出,西方国家主流媒体对中国国防透明度的认可程度与其国家同中国的政治友好程度"正向相关",而与西方国家主流媒体的媒体实力"反向相关"。西方国家主流媒体对中国国防透明度的新闻报道主要受到价值观念、刻板印象和国家利益等因素的影响,使其对中国国防透明度的新闻报道呈现一种层次性,不同类别的国家对中国国防透明度的评判态度明显不一致。因此,中国国防透明度的建构迫切需要与国际传播紧密结合起来,即实现自我塑造与他者建构的契合。     

抗争的动力:新媒体与缅甸的民主化

自从2007年以来,缅甸社会政治发生了很大变化,其中新媒体起了很关键的作用。在2007年"藏红花"革命和2008年纳吉斯风灾中,缅甸人民利用互联网、移动电话等新媒体技术向世界传递了政府镇压和掩盖的真相。缅甸军人政府也明显感到了新媒体技术对其统治的压力,因此在2010年缅甸大选之前,严格控制国内的互联网。新媒体技术的出现虽然没有导致缅甸社会权力结构发生实质性的变化,但是新媒体技术打破了原来军政府对信息的封锁,逐渐促进了缅甸的民主化进程。     

中美软实力在G20峰会中的比较研究——从国际媒体引用的视角

本文从G20峰会期间国际媒体引用的视角来比较中美两国的软实力。研究发现,中国被国际媒体的提及率高于美国;但美国金融机构受国际媒体的关注度高于中国;中国的发稿量比美国略高,但中美两国都远低于欧洲;欧洲媒体对中国高度关注,对美国却表现出揶揄和失望的情绪。中国正表现出在软实力领域的快速提升。     

论侦查与传媒理性关系的构建

当前阶段，侦查与传媒的关系呈现一种相对紧张的态势，彼此缺乏理解和有效沟通，难以构筑起一种互动协作、和谐发展的良性关系。因此，寻找二者内在理念的统一，理顺和构建侦查与传媒的和谐共赢关系，不仅有助于媒体及时报道案情，监督侦查的合法运行，而且还有利于侦查借助媒体加速破案进程，最终实现二者的并行不悖，良性运转。     

Asia-Pacific news

This column provides a country-by-country analysis of the latest legal developments, cases and issues relevant to the IT, media and telecommunications’ industries in key jurisdictions across the Asia-Pacific region. The articles appearing in this column are intended to serve as ‘alerts’ and are not submitted as detailed analyses of cases or legal developments.     

*当前新媒体对我国政治生态影响的多重效应

当今中国，信息技术的发展使我们进入新媒体时代。新媒体的兴起极大地改变着中国政治生态环境：新媒体不仅成为民意表达与交流的新渠道和平台，而且也成为传递政治“负能量”的新载体。随着时代的发展，新媒体的功能不断延展，并与政治生活的融合愈加紧密。这既给政府治理提出了新的挑战，又提供了新的机遇。     

新形势下新加坡《联合早报》媒介战略初探

随着新媒体的兴起,海外华文纸质传媒的生存发展面临巨大困难。新加坡《联合早报》作为纸质华文传媒的代表,采取了适应时代需求的媒介战略来应对困难。从文化定位、传媒视角的选择,到受众意识的加强;从多角化的经营模式,到大力宣传中国信息,科学合理的媒介战略使得《联合早报》成为21世纪华文传媒界的佼佼者。     

Reframing Sacred Values

Sacred values differ from material or instrumental values in that they incorporate moral beliefs that drive action in ways dissociated from prospects for success. Across the world, people believe that devotion to essential or core values — such as the welfare of their family and country, or their commitment to religion, honor, and justice — are, or ought to be, absolute and inviolable.
Counterintuitively, understanding an opponent's sacred values, we believe, offers surprising opportunities for breakthroughs to peace. Because of the emotional unwillingness of those in conflict situations to negotiate sacred values, conventional wisdom suggests that negotiators should either leave sacred values for last in political negotiations or should try to bypass them with sufficient material incentives. Our empirical findings and historical analysis suggest that conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, offering to provide material benefits in exchange for giving up a sacred value actually makes settlement more difficult because people see the offering as an insult rather than a compromise. But we also found that making symbolic concessions of no apparent material benefit might open the way to resolving seemingly irresolvable conflicts.
We offer suggestions for how negotiators can reframe their position by demonstrating respect and/or by apologizing for what they sincerely regret. We also offer suggestions for how to overcome barriers by refining sacred values to exclude outmoded claims, exploiting the inevitable ambiguity of sacred values, shifting the context, provisionally prioritizing values, and reframing responsibility.     

Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts over Gas Pipelines

This paper compares and contrasts high‐conflict policy debates over the siting of three natural gas pipeline projects at different decision stages of the siting process. This paper draws on over 600 newspaper articles spanning 3 years, analyzed through Discourse Network Analysis. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Conflict framework, this paper finds that actor framing of opposing policy beliefs involves more indirect than direct confrontations, with statements in the media waxing and waning over time. Opponents of the pipelines more often explicitly argue against pipelines, while also using a broad range of conceptual arguments, whereas proponents more often couch their arguments around the economic benefits of pipelines and use fewer conceptual frames overall. We also find evidence that opposing coalitions use similar framing across different decision contexts. This paper concludes with a commentary on the status and contributions of this paper to the study of policy conflicts and next steps in advancing similar research agendas.