“失语”与“失忆”——美国对外战争报道分析/Lost Voice and Lost Memory: Analysis of American Medias Wa

2018-10-28 02:17:19

media American 媒体 失语 反思



本研究以2003年伊拉克战争为主要个案,结合近20年内美国对外战争史的大背景,通过分析与比较美国媒体在历次战争爆发前和结束后的表现,概括出美国媒体习惯性“失语”与“反思”的报道模型。研究进一步探讨了这一模型产生背后深层次的原因,揭示了美国媒体在对外战争背景下的习惯性“失语”与随后的习惯性“反思”实为必然选择。
本论文的论述过程如下:
第一章回顾与评述了2003年伊拉克战争爆发前夕和战争结束后美国媒体的表现。笔者发现,战争爆发前,美国媒体几乎完全处于一种集体“失语”的状态,就是说,它们对于美国政府计划攻打伊拉克的理由和相关言论随声附和,缺乏独立的批判性分析;战争结束后,美国媒体则逐渐开始了对伊战报道的反思。
第二章以“失语”与“反思”作为关键词,回顾了上世纪八十年代以来,美国媒体在其他几次主要的美国对外战争的报道。研究的个案包括1991年的海湾战争,1999年的科索沃战争,以及2001年的阿富汗战争。研究发现,与2003年伊拉克战争的情况类似,美国媒体对于每一次战争的报道都存在集体“失语”的现象,并在战争结束后做出一定程度的反思。笔者把这种集体“失语”后进行“反思”,然后再集体“失语”、再“反思”的报道模型概括为美国媒体的集体“失忆”。
第三章是本论文的核心,它对美国媒体从“失语”到“反思”的报道模型进行了解读。笔者以为,如果仅仅停留在揭示美国媒体的拙劣表现和新闻自由真相这一阶段,那么论述的意义十分有限。但是如果像许多已有的文献一样,单单从媒体与政府的关系,或是战争报道涉及爱国主义元素的角度,那么是很难厘清整个现象的脉络的。特别不能解释的是,美国媒体战后的反思又是为了什么。这个时候,必须考虑到利润原则对于美国媒体的作用。笔者以为,当多方面的压力向媒体机构施压的时候,在其中起调和、控制、平衡作用的就是利润原则。换句话说,影响媒体报道行为的因素虽然异常复杂,各中关系盘根错节,然而说到底,商业利益与利润作为杠杆,在平衡了诸多利益后,决定了媒体最终的行为趋向。
第四章提出“利润原则下的身份冲突”这一解释思路,指出应该通过新闻媒体多重身份的冲突以及新闻记者多重身份的冲突这两个观察角度,进一步探究“失语”到“反思”的原因。



Setting the several international wars involving the United States over the past twenty years as historical background, this thesis analyzes and compareed American media’s performance before the outbreak of wars and after wars over the years, and concluded with an interpretive model for American media’s performance against a war setting. This model is termed as “loss of voice” and “loss of memory”. This thesis presents the 2003 Iraq War as a major case study. The author further shows the reasons why American media tends to behave certain ways. The contect includes:
After a thourough literature review, Chapter one reviews American media’s performance between the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War and after the war. The American media followed strictly what American government and the Bush administration promotes and almost totally lacked a critical journalisitic stance towards the establishment. After the war, however, the media started to reflect over its coverage before and during the war.
Chapter two, using “loss of voice” and “reflection” as keywords, reviews American media’s performance during several major international conflicts involving the U.S. force including 1991 Desert Storm, 1999 Kosovo War, and 2001 Afghanistan War. Research findings show that American media behaves in a similar way during those wars, collectively lost voice before the war yet begins serious reflection afterwards.
Chapter three analyzes why the above-mentioned phenomenon happens. The author believes that a simple and straightforward criticism towards American media and so called freedom of speech is of little value to the academia. Previously, many literature approaches this question from two angles. First is the mutually benefiting relationship between the media and the establishment. Second is patrioticism during warfares. These angles help, yet they can’t clearly explain why the American media reflect after the war. Therefore, profit principle’s impact on the meida should not be overlooked. It is profit balancing, controlling, and mediating between the media and many other outer pressure forces. The author further construct a model using “identity conflict” as a main angle for interpreting media’s performance during war times.