本論文研究目的，一為探討《蘋果日報》在台發行前，《中國時報》與《聯合報》在版面視覺元素的差異；二為《蘋果日報》在台發行後，三報在版面視覺元素方面的差異，以及在地兩報前後階段是否有差異。目的為了解在地兩大報是否因為《蘋果日報》加入競爭市場，而改變版面呈現。本研究採內容分析法，以次數分析、ANOVA檢定、雪菲檢定等為主。研究結果發現，《蘋果日報》的版面風格十分接近國外的小報風格，但《中國時報》與《聯合報》並未徹底顛覆過去報紙版面風格的定位。

本研究比較小報（蘋果日報）與大報（聯合報、中國時報）報導的不同處。同時也比較聯合報、中國時報於蘋果日報在台灣發行前後，其報導型式及方向是否有所改變。研究結果顯示聯合、中時兩大報只有在少數項目上有差異，大部分的類目沒有差異，意即兩大報無論在圖文比例、報導類型、頭條新聞的報導及選擇上，都是非常類似的兩份報紙。而兩報與蘋果日報除了少數類目外，大部分項目都有達到顯著差異，顯示兩大報與蘋果日報在圖文比例、報導類型、頭條新聞的報導及選擇上，是截然不同的報紙。另一方面，兩大報增加新聞總則數、總頁數、照片數、圖表數、彩色印刷頁數來因應蘋果。新聞則數及頁數的增加，顯示兩大報欲增加報導量來吸引讀者；而照片、圖表、彩色印刷頁數的增加，則顯示兩大報在某些項目上有逐漸向小報靠攏的趨勢。此現象也顯示台灣兩大報在報導形式上，的確漸漸「圖像化」，而傳統以文字為主的質報，也毫無例外的逐漸向圖像化靠攏。

本研究始於採訪實務中的觀察：學者在報端發表評論，影響了讀者們對於重要新聞事件或社會議題的解讀，報紙則藉助學者的身分及知識，提高報紙的可信度。根據一份來自媒體內部的非正式排行榜卻顯示，短短數年內，知名的學者或專家見諸報端的次數竟然多達數百次，這份名單被用來提醒記者們少找這些高曝光者。美國媒體界通稱這一群常見諸報端的評論者為Pundit(研究者試譯為「評匠」)，他們擁有「一通電話，快速評論」的本領，甚至自嘲是「評論應召者」。這樣的轉變毋寧是巨大的，研究者試圖追尋知識份子在報紙裡形貌的轉變。 　評論是報紙提供讀者除了資訊之外，得到觀點的重要來源。除了來自學院的知識份子之外，其他評論者還包括來自產業或具有專門知識的專家（例如律師、會計師、醫師或產業專門人士等），包括記者及專欄作家等媒體工作者以及透過投書表達意見的一般民眾。在報導形式上，除了客觀事實之外，摻入專家評論或民眾意見這種混合報導與評論的新聞，出現的頻率越來越多，尤以《蘋果日報》最常使用。研究者將此一報導形式稱為「混搭式報導」(crossover-reporting)，取其將不同性質的訊息及知識拼貼在一起之意，並作為觀察知識份子形貌變化的重要取徑。 本研究採定性及定量雙重取徑，透過內容分析法，選擇1987年（解除報禁）、1989、1997、1999、2003、2009等六個年份，包括：《聯合報》、《中國時報》、《自由時報》(1989年起)、及《蘋果日報》(2003年起)等四份主要報紙，以立意取樣觀察並紀錄評論者出現的次數、所佔面積/字數、位置(如新聞辦面、論壇版面或副刊版面等)、形式(如專文、座談會、受訪、讀者投書)，是否為混搭式報導等。另搭配對報導內容的定性觀察及深入訪談兩位新聞工作者，輔助量化分析所得並進一步進行質性探討。 結果顯示：雖然隨著報禁開放，學院知識份子的評論次數逐漸增加，但在22年間，評論的平均面積卻減少了52%，且從可完整論述的專文，逐漸退卻並轉進到民意論壇。以專文為例，從1987年的每篇平均320cm2，減少到2009年的80cm2。學院知識份子份量減少但次數增加，此一現象自2003年《蘋果日報》創刊後，大量採用混搭式報導就更形明顯。混搭式報導也提供了產業知識份子(專家)們評論的機會，甚至一般民眾都可以表達意見，出現的次數甚至不亞於比學者，但分量更為稀少，平均面積只有10餘平方公分。 至於深入訪談的編輯主管及第一線的記者都坦承在截稿時間壓力下及編輯部門要求下，會趨向選擇採訪口語表達能力好，反應快、可主動提供符合編輯需要的評論意見的學者或專家，與美國的評匠有相當高的同質性。 綜上，研究者認為，知識份子與報紙之間的關係，已從早期的文人報導，論政救國，逐漸退居到作為報導裡眾生喧嘩裡的評論者之一。知識遭到工具化，僅有滿足報紙設定立場的機械式評論。作為獨立意見提供者，知識份子或許應該維持反叛與堅持的態度，基於面向社會的責任感。在面對報業困境及呈現爆炸式成長的新興傳播科技與網路社群的同時，知識份子們應當重新自我書寫、發表並尋回獨立發聲的機會，方能作為社會良知，發聲以震聵 / In order to emphasize the credibility of news reports and offer news analysis to the readers, newspaper as well as other media always quote the comments of experts or scholars. However, an informal ranking list came from a newspaper revealed that the same group of experts always quoted up to several hundred times within years, and the mangers of the this newspaper reminded their reporters to avoid interviewing those experts who were familiar to the public. The American media industry call a group of commentators with different specialties often shown in the newspaper as ‘Pundit,’who are well prepared to answer questions or express their viewpoints for the reporters in a phone call quickly. Thus, this phenomenon seems to be common not only in Taiwan but also in other countries. Comments in the newspaper provide readers different point of views other than objective information. Instead of academic scholars, experts such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, columnists and senior media workers can also play the role of commentators. In this study, we observe a kind of news report which reporters not only provide facts to the readers, but also quote the comments of the intellectuals, as well as that of common people. The study call this type of reports as ‘crossover-reporting,’ which is a new phenomena in Taiwan media industry, and the reporter of which combine different kinds of information in a report. This technique is seemed to be mostly used by Apple Daily. By analyzing how the intellectuals and their comments appears in the newspaper, the study tries to explore the changing roles of the intellectuals in Taiwan printed media. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis are used in this study. We choose four newspaper from 1989 to 2009 as our materials. The properties of the comments were further analyzed by purposively sampling the appearance of intellectuals in the main contents in theses newspapers. We analyze the number of words, the section where the report appears (e.g. in the main reports, forums, or supplements), and the form (e.g. special articles, opinion, symposium, interviews, or letters to editors) to define whether a report is cross-reporting or not, and to observe the change of the role of intellectuals. Besides, we interview two senior media worker to gather qualitative information for our analysis; one of the interviewee is a chief editor and the other one is a senior reporter. The results of the study shows that the number of comments from academic scholars is increasing since 1987 (the year which the Lifting of Martial Law is declared in Taiwan); however, the average area is decreased by 52% within 22 years, and the form they appeared is gradually transformed from integral special article to public opinion forum (e.g. the average area was 320 cm2 in 1987, but remain only 80 cm2 in 2009 in special articles). The study also shows since Apply Daily started publication in 2003 and its massive use of crossover-reporting, the academic scholars’ number of words quoted by reporter has decreased, but the number of academic scholars’ quotation has increased. We also find that the using of crossover-reporting provides the opportunities for other intellectuals and even general public to comment on news issues. The number of their comment is even more than that of the scholars, but number of words of the former (average area is only about 10 cm2) is lesser than that of the latter. By interviewing two senior media workers, both of them agree that, under time pressure and the demand from editors, they prefer to adopt the comments from those intellectuals who can express clearly, response quickly and actively provide information. This situation is very similar to that of American mass media industry of which the media always need ‘Pundit’ to give quick and clear comments for the needs of reporting and editing. In words, this study demonstrates the change of the role of the intellectuals in the newspaper; they used to offered professional opinions for the public and played important role in politics. However, in the recent years, the intellectuals’ role gradually decline and become only one of the commentators appearing in media. Now professional knowledge is used only as tool to support the viewpoint of the newspaper. In our opinion, we still suggest that the intellectuals should remember their social responsibilities, keep their independent and critical roles and resist the present situation which regard them as only tools or materials of reporting. In facing the decline of printed media and the rising of new media technology such as internet and social media, the intellectuals should try to reclaim their position as the conscience of the society and reacquire their influencing role to enlightening the public.