播音与主持外文翻译.doc

（翻译两篇外文资料。要求翻译与毕业论文相关的外文文献要求达到10000个字符左右（或翻译成中文后至少在2000汉字以上）；将译文附在原文之后，翻译的外文资料必须是近年公开发表的且与毕业论文研究内容相符） 1. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models Dietram A. Scheufele & David Tewksbury This special issue of Journal of Communication is devoted to theoretical explanations of news framing, agenda setting, and priming effects. It examines if and how the three models are related and what potential relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. As an introduction to this effort, this essay provides a very brief review of the three effects and their roots in media-effects research.Based on this overview, we highlight a few key dimensions along which one can compare,framing, agenda setting, and priming. We conclude with a description of the contexts within which the three models operate, and the broader implications that these conceptual distinctions have for the growth of our discipline. Parsimony versus precision: framing, agenda setting, and priming The three models we focus on in this issueframing, agenda setting, and priminghave received significant scholarly attention since they were introduced. Agenda setting refers to the idea that there is a strong correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues (e.g., based on relative placement or amount of coverage) and the importance attributed to these issues by mass audiences (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). As defined in the political communication literature, Priming refers tochanges in the standards that people use to make political evaluations(Iyengar & Kinder, 1987, p. 63). Priming occurs when news content suggests to news audiences that they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and governments. It is often understood as an extension of agenda setting. There are two reasons for this: (a) Both effects are based on memory-based models of information processing. These models assume that people form attitudes based on the considerations that are most salient (i.e., most accessible) when they make decisions (Hastie & Park, 1986). In other words, judgments and attitude formation are directly correlated with “the ease in which instances or associations could be brought to mind” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973, p. 208); (b) based on the common theoretical foundation, some researchers have argued that priming is a temporal extension of agenda setting (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). By making some issues more salient in peoples mind (agenda setting), mass media can also shape the considerations that people take into account when making judgments. Framing differs significantly from these accessibility-based models. It is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences. Framing is often traced back to roots in both psychology and sociology (Pan & Kosicki, 1993).The psychological origins of framing lie in experimental work by Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1984), for which Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics (Kahneman, 2003). They examined how different presentations of essentially identical decision-making scenarios influence peoples choices and their evaluation of the various options presented to them. The sociological foundations of framing were laid by Goffman. In order to efficiently process new information, Goffman argues, individuals therefore apply interpretive schemas or“primary frameworks”(Goffman, 1974, p. 24) to classify information and interpret it meaningfully.Framing therefore is both a macrolevel and a microlevel construct (Scheufele,1999). As a macroconstruct, the term “framing” refers to modes of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to present information. This does not mean, of course, that most journalists try to spin a story or deceive their audiences. Frames, in other words, become invaluable tools for presenting relatively complex issues, such as stem cell research, efficiently and in a way that makes them accessible to lay audiences because they play to existing cognitive schemas. As a microconstruct, framing describes how people use information and presentation features regarding issues as they form impressions. Sorting out the differences An explication of the relationships between agenda setting (and priming) and framing needs to bridge levels of analysis and answer (a) how news messages are created,(b) how they are processed, and (c) how the effects are produced. The development of a conceptual model that adequately explains the three effects should therefore address the relationships among them related to these three questions. Failing to do so will leave the field with a confusing set of concepts and terminologies. From: Journal of Communication 2007(1) 框架构建，议程设置和启动效应：三种媒体效应模式的演进 概括与精确：框架构建，议程设置和启动效应 这期传播期刊是新闻框架，议程设置和启动效应的理论解释特刊。它检验这三个模式是否和如何相关，它们之间有哪些潜在关系能给研究大众传媒效应的理论家和研究者以启示。在此我们抛砖引玉，简单地回顾了这三种效应和它们在媒介效应研究中的根源。在回顾地基础上，我们指出可以比较启动效应，框架和议程设置的几个层面。我们的结论描述了启动效应，框架和议程设置关系间互相作用的环境，并指出这些理论差异对我们学科成长的意义。在这个问题上，我们要关注的三种媒体效应的模式分别是框架构建，议程设置和启动效应这些媒体效应模式自从被学者提出后就收到了学术界的广泛关注。议程设置指的是这样一种理念，媒体对某些问题的着重强调和受众对这些问题的重要性的认识之间存在着巨大的联系。（麦库姆斯，肖，1972）在政治传播学的文献中，启动效应被定义做“人们进行政治评价的标准的变化”。当新闻报道中的信息暗示观众要去用具体的标准去评价政府和领导人的表现的时候，启动效应就开始展现效果了。启动效应时常被看作议程设置的一种延伸效应。 具体原因有如下两点：首先，两种效应都是建立在以记忆为基础的信息处理模式上。这些模式假设，当人们在做出决定的时候，人们的态度是建立在自己最先想到的事情上的。换言之，与人们的态度和判断形成直接相关的是一种“事物可以被轻易想起”的感觉。其二，这两种效应都建立在相同的理论基础之上。某些研究学者认为启动效应是对议程设置时间上的延长。通过使得某些问题在受众的脑海中更为凸显，大众媒体可以塑造受众在进行判断时要考虑的事实。框架构建和其他几种无障碍模式极为不同。框架构建基于这样的一种假设：媒体的新闻报道塑造一则新闻的方式会对受众对改则新闻的理解产生一定影响。框架构建理论可以在心理学和社会学中找到其源头。框架设置的心理学研究起源开始于卡内曼和特韦尔斯基的实验性研究，并且卡内曼也因为此项研究获得了2002年的诺贝尔经济学奖。 他们研究了，在基本想通的决策场景中不同的表述方式是如何影响人们最终的选择以及他们对选项的价值判断。戈夫曼为框架设置奠定了其社会学理论基础。戈夫曼认为，为了更加高效地出来新的信息，人们会运用“解释模式”或“初级框架”去对信息进行分类整理并进行字面的解释。因此，框架构建即是一个宏观的概念，同时也是一个微观的概念。作为一个宏观概念，框架构建指的是记者和其他传播者传播新闻的一种方式。当然这并不意味着所有的记者都是编造故事或者欺骗读者。 厘清差异 框架构建可以用于高效率地展现像肝细胞研究这样的较为复杂的话题，框架构建可以发挥已有的认知模式使得观众感觉新闻真实更加可接近。如果作为一个宏观概念来理解，框架构建描述了人们在脑海中形成印象的时候是如何运用到信息和与主题相关的展示手段的特点。要想解释清楚议程设置，启动效应和框架构建三者之间的关系首先需要结合多个层次的分析，其次要回答一下三个问题：新闻是如何产生的，新闻是如何被加工的，媒体效应是如何产生的。一个能够完全解释这三者间关系的概念模型应该能够对以上这三个问题进行解答，如若不能，则还仅仅只是一些让人疑惑的空泛概念和术语。2. The Role of Media in the Imia/Kardak Crisis: The Importance of Media Influence and Its Limitations? Athanasios Manis It is widely acknowledged nowadays that media play an important role in the formation of state policies along the traditional elements of state power, such as the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The technological advancement in media sector during the last decades as well as the third wave of democratisation has rendered media an appealing power of influence on public opinions, and, by extension, on the traditional elements of state power. However, the influence is not only top-down, but also bottom-up, especially if one considers that a number of private media exists along a small number of state media. Private media following the rule of market have to be tuned to the expectations of their client-public opinion. In this case, media act as a conduit of public opinions ideas, sentiments and expectations. In order to test medias influence on the domain of politics, foreign policy has been selected as the domain where media influence has the least likely effects. Considering the fact that state officials perceive the implementation of foreign policy as prerogative of traditional elements of state power, such as the executive and the legislature, a case study in which media play a crucial role in comparison with past events will shed light on the extent that media influence decisions of foreign policy, as well as on the circumstances under which influence takes place. A good case study to that end is the Imia/Kardak crisis between Greece and Turkey. The Imia/Kardak crisis erupted in 1996 and was one among many that characterise Greek-Turkish relations during the last fifty years. If one opens a Greek or Turkish book of history or a book on Greek-Turkish relations, it is easy to understand the degree to which hostility and competition existed -at least until 1999- at a state level, not to mention at a societal one, between the two neighbouring countries. Therefore, one could ask what an analysis of the Imia/Kardak crisis might add to the understanding of the Greek-Turkish relations,One possible reason for further analysis of the Imia/Kardak dispute, apart from the fact that the crisis added an “unknown” until then dispute to the Aegean problem or problems6 as far as the status quo of islets and rocks is concerned, is the role that media played as a distinctive actor in both countries, by competing in or contributing to the states attempts to implement their respective foreign policies. Thus, an examination of this case will give us the opportunity to assess the role that media played in the conduct of Greek and Turkish foreign policy during this particular event, and subsequently to draw some conclusions concerning the interrelation of foreign policy and media. At first glance, the crisis could be divided into two parts, although both parts are interrelated. In the first part, the vessel accident happens, the secret exchange of verbal notes follows, in which the Greek-Turkish disagreement over the status of Imia/Kardak rocks is expressed, and finally the freeze of the dispute for “unknown” time evolves, while in the second part, media bring the whole problem to the forefront, they actively promote tension, aggravation of the difference follows, the two countries are on the brink of war, and finally American diplomatic intervention comes up and disengagement of both count