论文部分内容阅读
本文通过对《泰晤士报》、《纽约时报》和《悉尼先驱晨报》有关新疆“7.5事件”的报道文本展开高、中、低三个不同结构层次的框架分析发现,三报将“7.5事件”置于冲突框架、归因框架、评估框架、形象框架中进行报道,并且产生了新闻偏见。虽然三报的报道及其新闻偏见存在诸多差异,但是,总的来看,它们的报道存在相似的新闻偏见:三报将“7.5事件”定性为汉族和维吾尔族民族矛盾激化引发的一场“骚乱”或“骚动”:它们将事发原因归结为中国政府的政策失当,“嫁祸”中国政府,同时将深层原因指向民族矛盾;它们明显指责和倾向指责中国政府居多,却同情和支持热比娅及分裂分子;它们塑造了中国政府的负面形象,却致力于打造热比娅及分裂分子良好的国际形象。这也即是说,三报在报道“他者”时产生了相似的新闻偏见。三报对新疆“7.5事件”报道的新闻偏见的背后有着深刻的历史、文化和意识形态以及经济方面的根源,值得我们保持警惕和深入研究。
This article analyzes the high, medium and low levels of the three structural frameworks of the newspaper “The 7.5 Incident” in the Times, The New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald and found that the three newspapers set “ 7.5 Events ”is placed in a conflict framework, attribution framework, evaluation framework, image framework and generates news biases. Although there are many differences between the coverage of the three newspapers and their news prejudices, in general, there are similar news biases in their coverage: the three newspapers defined the “7.5 Incident” as a result of the intensification of ethnic conflicts between Han and Uighur ethnic groups They have attributed the incident to the policy misconduct of the Chinese government, “framed” the Chinese government, and at the same time directed the deep-rooted reason to ethnic conflicts. They apparently accused and tended to accuse China of “blamelessness” The government, while in the majority, sympathized with and supported Rebiya and separatists; they shaped the negative image of the Chinese government and were committed to building a good international image of Rebiya and separatists. This means that the three newspapers reported similar news biases when they reported “the Other.” The three stories behind the news prejudices covered by the “7.5 Incident” in Xinjiang have profound historical, cultural and ideological as well as economic roots and deserve our vigilance and in-depth study.