播音與主持藝術(shù)專業(yè)外文翻譯

1、（翻譯兩篇外文資料。要求翻譯與畢業(yè)論文相關(guān)的外文文獻(xiàn)要求達(dá)到10000個(gè)字符左右（或翻譯成中文后至少在2000漢字以上）；將譯文附在原文之后，翻譯的外文資料必須是近年公開(kāi)發(fā)表的且與畢業(yè)論文研究?jī)?nèi)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 theoretic

2、al 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

3、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 impl

4、ications 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.

5、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 po

6、litical 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 performanc

7、e 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.,

8、 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 found

9、ation, 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 diff

10、ers 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 p

11、sychological 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 th

12、eir 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 informatio

13、n 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 jo

14、urnalists 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 m

15、icroconstruct, 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

16、 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

17、a confusing set of concepts and terminologies. From: Journal of Communication 2007(1) 框架構(gòu)建，議程設(shè)置和啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)：三種媒體效應(yīng)模式的演進(jìn) 概括與精確：框架構(gòu)建，議程設(shè)置和啟動(dòng)效應(yīng) 這期傳播期刊是新聞框架，議程設(shè)置和啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)的理論解釋特刊。它檢驗(yàn)這三個(gè)模式是否和如何相關(guān)，它們之間有哪些潛在關(guān)系能給研究大眾傳媒效應(yīng)的理論家和研究者以啟示。在此我們拋磚引玉，簡(jiǎn)單地回顧了這三種效應(yīng)和它們?cè)诿浇樾?yīng)研究中的根源。在回顧地基礎(chǔ)上，我們指出可以比較啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)，框架和議程設(shè)置的幾個(gè)層面。我們的結(jié)論描述了啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)，框架和議程設(shè)

18、置關(guān)系間互相作用的環(huán)境，并指出這些理論差異對(duì)我們學(xué)科成長(zhǎng)的意義。在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，我們要關(guān)注的三種媒體效應(yīng)的模式分別是框架構(gòu)建，議程設(shè)置和啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)這些媒體效應(yīng)模式自從被學(xué)者提出后就收到了學(xué)術(shù)界的廣泛關(guān)注。議程設(shè)置指的是這樣一種理念，媒體對(duì)某些問(wèn)題的著重強(qiáng)調(diào)和受眾對(duì)這些問(wèn)題的重要性的認(rèn)識(shí)之間存在著巨大的聯(lián)系。（麥庫(kù)姆斯，肖，1972）在政治傳播學(xué)的文獻(xiàn)中，啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)被定義做“人們進(jìn)行政治評(píng)價(jià)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的變化”。當(dāng)新聞報(bào)道中的信息暗示觀眾要去用具體的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去評(píng)價(jià)政府和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的表現(xiàn)的時(shí)候，啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)就開(kāi)始展現(xiàn)效果了。啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)時(shí)常被看作議程設(shè)置的一種延伸效應(yīng)。 具體原因有如下兩點(diǎn)：首先，兩種效應(yīng)都是建立在以記憶為基

19、礎(chǔ)的信息處理模式上。這些模式假設(shè)，當(dāng)人們?cè)谧龀鰶Q定的時(shí)候，人們的態(tài)度是建立在自己最先想到的事情上的。換言之，與人們的態(tài)度和判斷形成直接相關(guān)的是一種“事物可以被輕易想起”的感覺(jué)。其二，這兩種效應(yīng)都建立在相同的理論基礎(chǔ)之上。某些研究學(xué)者認(rèn)為啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)是對(duì)議程設(shè)置時(shí)間上的延長(zhǎng)。通過(guò)使得某些問(wèn)題在受眾的腦海中更為凸顯，大眾媒體可以塑造受眾在進(jìn)行判斷時(shí)要考慮的事實(shí)?？蚣軜?gòu)建和其他幾種無(wú)障礙模式極為不同?？蚣軜?gòu)建基于這樣的一種假設(shè)：媒體的新聞報(bào)道塑造一則新聞的方式會(huì)對(duì)受眾對(duì)改則新聞的理解產(chǎn)生一定影響。框架構(gòu)建理論可以在心理學(xué)和社會(huì)學(xué)中找到其源頭。框架設(shè)置的心理學(xué)研究起源開(kāi)始于卡內(nèi)曼和特韋爾斯基的實(shí)驗(yàn)性研究，

20、并且卡內(nèi)曼也因?yàn)榇隧?xiàng)研究獲得了2002年的諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。 他們研究了，在基本想通的決策場(chǎng)景中不同的表述方式是如何影響人們最終的選擇以及他們對(duì)選項(xiàng)的價(jià)值判斷。戈夫曼為框架設(shè)置奠定了其社會(huì)學(xué)理論基礎(chǔ)。戈夫曼認(rèn)為，為了更加高效地出來(lái)新的信息，人們會(huì)運(yùn)用“解釋模式”或“初級(jí)框架”去對(duì)信息進(jìn)行分類(lèi)整理并進(jìn)行字面的解釋。因此，框架構(gòu)建即是一個(gè)宏觀的概念，同時(shí)也是一個(gè)微觀的概念。作為一個(gè)宏觀概念，框架構(gòu)建指的是記者和其他傳播者傳播新聞的一種方式。當(dāng)然這并不意味著所有的記者都是編造故事或者欺騙讀者。 厘清差異 框架構(gòu)建可以用于高效率地展現(xiàn)像肝細(xì)胞研究這樣的較為復(fù)雜的話題，框架構(gòu)建可以發(fā)揮已有的認(rèn)知模式使得觀

21、眾感覺(jué)新聞?wù)鎸?shí)更加可接近。如果作為一個(gè)宏觀概念來(lái)理解，框架構(gòu)建描述了人們?cè)谀X海中形成印象的時(shí)候是如何運(yùn)用到信息和與主題相關(guān)的展示手段的特點(diǎn)。要想解釋清楚議程設(shè)置，啟動(dòng)效應(yīng)和框架構(gòu)建三者之間的關(guān)系首先需要結(jié)合多個(gè)層次的分析，其次要回答一下三個(gè)問(wèn)題：新聞是如何產(chǎn)生的，新聞是如何被加工的，媒體效應(yīng)是如何產(chǎn)生的。一個(gè)能夠完全解釋這三者間關(guān)系的概念模型應(yīng)該能夠?qū)σ陨线@三個(gè)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行解答，如若不能，則還僅僅只是一些讓人疑惑的空泛概念和術(shù)語(yǔ)。2. The Role of Media in the Imia/Kardak Crisis: The Importance of Media Influence and

22、 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

23、 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

24、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 o

25、n 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 le

26、gislature, 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

27、 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 co

28、mpetition 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 analys

29、is 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 contributi

30、ng 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 con

31、cerning 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 stat

32、us 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 inte