三十年代,美国的传播学研究开始登上学术舞台,当即产生了轰动响应。众多的、具有不同学术背景的学者们纷纷“下海”,试图在这块新开垦的处女地上一展身手。大约30年后,威尔伯·施拉姆不无兴奋、也不无自豪地宣称:“当然,传播学还没有成为诸如物理学、经济学那样的一门学科,但是它已经成为一个充满巨大活力的研究和理论领域。”①施拉姆的评价也许不无根据,问题是并非所有人都像他一般乐观。1959年,一位在传学研究中进行过辛勤耕耘,并已具相当影响的学者却曾发出过截然相反的悲叹:“至于传播学研究,正处于枯萎状况。”这位学者就是贝内特·贝雷尔森。犹如一石激起千层浪,贝氏的这盆“冷水”引发了一场轩然大波。施拉姆等人纷纷披挂上阵,予以反击,遂形成传学史上有关传学研究自身的第一次大讨论。 In the thirties, American research in communication began to mount the academic stage, immediately producing a sensational response. A large number of scholars with different academic backgrounds have “gone to sea” in an attempt to showcase themselves in this newly cultivated virgin land. About 30 years later, Wilbur Schramm is not without its excitement, nor is it proud to declare: “Of course, communication studies have not yet become such a discipline as physics, economics, but it has become a huge Dynamic areas of research and theory. ”① Schramm’s evaluation may not be unfounded, the problem is that not everyone as optimistic about his general. In 1959, a scholar who has worked hard and has had considerable influence in the study of teleology has issued the opposite lament: “As for the study of communication, it is in a state of withering.” The scholar is Bennett Beretson. Like a stone aroused Melaleuca waves, Bayesian basin this “cold water” triggered an uproar. Shi Laimu, who have put on battle, to fight back, then the formation of the history of the history of scholarship research itself the first major discussion.