No description available.

1996年來，《紐約時報》緊跟數位科技發展，跨媒體經營網站，其內部新聞室也出現轉折，以產製數位新聞目標，逐步調整新聞產製的內容與方式。本研究從新聞產製取徑出發，分析《紐約時報》自1996年到2016年間的新聞室數位化轉型歷程，剖析產製數位新聞與工作常規轉變之間的關聯性。經文獻回顧所整理的分析架構，將研究個案的分三階段探討：第一階段變革（1996-1999）、第二階段變革（2000-2007）、第三階段變革（2008-2016），文獻分析法，系統性地整理現有歷史資料，剖析研究個案在不同階段的轉型歷程。 研究發現，《紐約時報》在各階段數位科技發展中從未缺席，甚至積極擁抱改變，拋棄過往歷經百年的印刷報紙產製流程，以求市場領先地位。其歷年來的數位新聞服務多元，儘管過程中有些服務宣告失敗，但經營者與高層主管總有獨到見解，積極投入資源，內部新聞從業人員也總能快速因應，不斷招募新的數位科技人才，設立新職務，打造不同以往的新聞產製流程與工作常規。相較於過去，《紐約時報》網站與報紙新聞室之間的關係已經反客為主，從「網路優先」概念進展到「行動優先」，並持續在新聞室中拓展不一樣的新聞工作常規和產製流程，為《紐約時報》新聞室數位化轉型，埋下成功的因子。 / Today, journalists across the organization are hungry to bring about change while facing a vital moment where digitalization has pushed the entire newspaper industry to accelerate transformation. In the past few years, The New York Times, as a pioneer of the American newspaper industry, has tried to change news routines and produce progress that takes advantage of today’s changing media landscape. In light of the importance of digitalization, this case study takes a historical approach to analyze the digitalization of The New York Times newsroom from 1996 to 2016, as well as other endeavors, in order to provide a framework of the newspaper’s news routines during the digitalization era. The analysis framework is composed into three periods of time: 1996-1999, 2000-2007, and 2008-2016. This study concludes that as The New York Times is uniquely well-positioned to transform itself quickly, it buried the traditional news routines of print newspaper and moved forward to make digital progress as soon as possible. Their digital-first strategy is still ongoing, and, as a result, this report shows that The New York Times has played a vital role in a changing world and has brought about different types of digital progress.

隨著冷戰結束，美國藉由其強大國力和自身的話語權力，在國際社會爭取自身利益。近年來，由於中國國力日漸強大，開始重視話語權的建構，加上 2008年西藏拉薩「3．14事件」發生時，中國封鎖消息，沒有官方來源的情況下，國外媒體紛紛透過其他管道採訪，出現許多次錯誤報導，讓中國失去主動建立話語權的機會。中國政府當局深知此事傷害中國形象甚尤，為了避免形成所謂「以美國為主的國際話語和國際輿論霸權」以及「傳播美國化」的問題，中國在2009年新疆「7．5事件」中放寬新聞管制，主動提供外國媒體信息，並安排外國記者採訪事宜，使訊息較為透明化，避免世界一邊倒的輿論偏向，企圖獲得中國話語權。 在2009年新疆烏魯木齊「7．5事件」中，中國政府採取不同於過往的處理方式，中國當局記取改善信息發佈制度，事件發生後幾小時內，中國國務院新聞辦公室邀請外國記者到烏魯木齊採訪，安排記者採訪事宜，較諸2008年西藏拉薩「3．14事件」。因此，本研究採取內容分析和論述分析等，透過分析新疆「7．5事件」新聞，試圖了解中國傳媒如何藉由新疆「7．5事件」新聞報導建構中國話語權策略，並以美國《紐約時報》作為論證，檢視中國藉由新疆「7．5事件」建構話語權的成效為何。研究結果發現，《中新社》運用的九項報導策略，在《紐約時報》並沒有提及類似的新聞內容，證明《中新社》的報導策略在《紐約時報》試圖從報導新疆「7．5事件」建構的國際話語權策略，成效有限。 / While Cold War ended, the United States fought for their own interests in the global society through their own national power and discursive power. In recent years, China’s national power has become stronger, and started to focus on discursive power. When 2008 Tibetan unrest happened, China blocked all the information. There is no official source so that the foreign media have to use irregular channels to interview people. There are some error reports in foreign media, so China lost the opportunity to take the initiative to establish the right to speak. Chinese authorities knew that the matter hurt Chinese image severely. In order to avoid the problems so-called “US-based international hegemonic discourse” and “dissemination of Americanization,” China, in July 2009 Urumqi riots, loosened restrictions in media and took initiative to provide information to journalists. Chinese government also arranged some interviews for foreign so that the messages were more transparent to avoid one-sided opinions to gain Chinese discursive power. In July 2009 Urumqi riots, the Chinese government adopted the approach different from the past, which improved information release system. Within a few hours after the incident, China's State Council Information Office invited foreign reporters to Urumqi to do interviews which differed from 2008 Tibetan unrest. Therefore, this study adopts content analysis and discourse analysis etc. to realize how Chinese media constructs Chinese discourse strategies and uses U.S.A. “New York Times” as a proof to view Chinese discourse strategies’ effects through July 2009 Urumqi riots news. The study finds that China News Service uses 9 strategies in reporting Urumqi riots. However, New York Times do not mention the similar coverage. It proved that China News Service use the strategies to construct international discursive power in reporting Urumqi riots, to be limited success.