PDF(1745 KB)
PDF(1745 KB)
PDF(1745 KB)
秩序修辞与协同：社交媒体语境下政府公共传播的逻辑重构与多元实践
Norm Rhetoric and Collaboration: Logic Reconstruction and Multiple Practice of Government Public Communication in the Context of Social Media
政府公共传播是组织传播和媒介规范的交叉概念。作为推动民主社会进程的机制构成，政府公共传播是基于公共决策、信息接近和社会责任的最佳社会决策框架而建立的“公共话语系统”。社交媒体重构了政府公共传播的要素指涉语境，“秩序协同”成为我国政府公共传播话语实践的主导模式。通过运用语境重构方法对微信平台的政府公共传播多元话语主体生成的关键文本进行文本间语境重构分析，以检验政府公共传播各行动者在社交媒体的策略实践能力。研究发现，在重大公共事件传播中，官方机构以“权威发布”的强话语文本建构公共传播“主调”，并通过机构间文本互文和修辞维持话语秩序。媒体文本对政府文本，尤其是关键文本高度依赖并将“协作修辞”作为其主要话语策略，此外，公众参与政府公共传播的话语空间仍然有限。据此，本文提出了我国政府公共传播的“协同责任”媒介规范理论，主张社会责任论与公民参与相结合的责任协同范式。
Government public communication is an intersectional concept of organizational communication and media norms. As a mechanism to promote the process of democratic society, government public communication is a “public discourse system” based on the best social decision-making framework of public decision-making, information access and social responsibility. With the reconstruction of the elemental context for government public communication in social media, “norm collaboration” has become the dominant mode of discourse practice in government public communication. This paper attempts to testify the strategic practice capability of multiple actors of government public communication on social media by analyzing the key texts with the method of recontextualization. It is found that in the major public events, the official institutions construct the “main tone” of public communication with the strong discursive text of “authoritative release”, and maintain the discourse order by means of intertextuality and rhetoric across the institutions. Media texts are highly dependent on government texts, especially its key texts, and take “collaborative rhetoric” as their main discourse strategy. In addition, the discourse space for the public to participate in government public communication is still restricted. Therefore, this paper puts forward the media normative theory of “collaborative responsibility” for government public communication in the domestic context, and advocates a collaborative paradigm of responsibility that combines social responsibility tradition with citizen participation.
government public communication / social media / recontextualisation / media normative theory
| [1] |
谷羽(2019). 语义网络分析方法在传播学中的应用及批判. 《现代传播(中国传媒大学学报)》,(4),155-159.
|
| [2] |
何塞·范·迪克(2017). 《互联文化》. 北京: 中国传媒大学出版社.
|
| [3] |
史安斌(2022年6月). 乌卡时代公关理论的重构与再造.“‘战略传播与中国之治’第十四届PRAD学术论坛暨第六届PRSC学术年会”会议论文.浙江杭州.
|
| [4] |
唐芳(2010). 新媒介环境下的政府公共传播研究.湘潭大学文学与新闻学院硕士论文.湖南.
|
| [5] |
王勇(2010). 论新媒介环境下的政府公共传播. 《昆明理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,(6),72-77.
|
| [6] |
朱春阳(2014). 《新媒体时代的政府公共传播》. 上海: 复旦大学出版社.
|
| [7] |
Effective public communications have been proposed as a remedy for citizens’ distrust in government. Recent studies pointed to the emotional effect of symbolic elements, entangled in government public communications (e.g., logos, images, and celebrities). Still, they did not examine the interaction between these symbols and the substantive information in communications about bureaucracies’ performance and policies. Exploring this interaction is important for understanding the theoretical mechanisms underlying the effect of symbolic communication on citizens’ trust. Also, it is essential to assess symbols’ potency to unduly compensate for unfavorable or logically unpersuasive information, and enable public organizations to escape justified public criticism. Building on the social psychology Elaboration Likelihood Model, I theorize that symbols may increase citizens’ trust by conducing citizens to pay less attention to logically unpersuasive information, and thus offsetting its negative effect. I test this indirect mechanism via a large survey experiment, focusing on the Israeli Environment Protection Ministry. The experimental results support the research hypotheses and suggest that the effect of symbolic elements is stronger when communications include logically unpersuasive information. I discuss the implications of these findings for democratic responsiveness and accountability.
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
This paper examines the evolution of two separate fields, which are essentially concerned with the same issues but are framed by different academic and professional disciplines and practice. It appears that public affairs management researchers often fail to take into account parallel literature from the discipline of public relations — even when purporting to offer an interdisciplinary approach. Equally, the public relations literature frequently fails to speak the language of business management and narrowly defines such key business activities as marketing, policy and strategy. In this paper, the authors present evidence prescribing the differing evolution of public affairs and public relations. They compare and contrast public affairs and public relations in terms of their definitions, scholarship, survey evidence, leading writers, academic and professional associations and educational programme content. They conclude by offering several suggestions for closing the gap between the two areas.
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
This study relies on online surveys of politically interested web users during the 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential elections to examine the degree to which people judge online information as credible and to compare how credibility has shifted in the past decade. Whereas credibility scores jumped in 2000, they declined in 2004. Online issue sources were judged the most credible and online broadcast TV news sources the least credible. Whereas respondents perceived few differences between online and traditionally delivered sources in the 2000 campaign, greater differences emerged in the 2004 campaign.
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
1. 公共关系的四种模型：媒体代理、公共信息传递、双向不对称和双向对称四模型。
2. 议题框架偏好是按照主体实践的功能诉求及其角色偏好，以讯息类型为基础，将“告知阐释类讯息”议题界定为专业行动偏好；将“知识劝服类讯息”议题界定为知识劝服偏好；将“诉求类讯息”议题界定为社会互动偏好；将“分享类讯息”议题界定为媒介文化偏好。
3. 数据来自本课题小组另外一项“政府公共传播信息接近”调研中的问卷调查。问题：疫情期间你通过哪个（些）社交媒体获得政府发布的疫情信息?结果：主流媒体的社交媒体官方账号65%、政府社交媒体官方账号10%、主流媒体APP11%、政府机构官方APP4%、自媒体5%、其他2%。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
