期刊文献+

公共空间还是减压阀? “北大雕像戴口罩”微博讨论中的归因、冲突与情感表达 被引量:22

Public Sphere or Pressure Valve? Causal Attribution,Conflict and Emotional Expression in Weibo-sphere Discussion on "Mask Wearing Statue in Peking University"
原文传递
导出
摘要 网络公共事务讨论常散布着对复杂问题的简单归因、情感自由宣泄和群体间利益冲突,与"公共空间"的民主商议相去甚远。为理解国内网络论坛的特征和互动模式,本文基于情感框架理论结合质化内容分析方法考察新浪微博"人民日报"和"新浪图片"账号对"北大雕像戴口罩"事件(简称"戴口罩"事件)的讨论。本文研究了微博讨论中地区冲突、归因等各类话语的具体内容与其所带情感之间的关联,以及讨论中情感表达与其他话语在对话过程中的相互影响。本文发现,微博空间更似"减压阀"而非公共空间:微博讨论中情感化批评占主导;情绪会扩散;冲突话语触发愤怒并减少对话。本研究对情感框架理论的建构,对理解中国网络讨论空间,对网络从业人员实践皆有借鉴意义。 Causal/remedy attribution, emotion venting and interests conflict are common in online discussions on public affairs, which are far from democratic deliberation in "public sphere." In order to understand the characteristics and interaction model of online forum in China, this paper examined online discussions on "mask wearing statue in Peking University" in the weibo accounts of People's Daily and Sina Pictures based on emotional framing theory. It analyzes how the substantive contents of various discourses interact with emotions these discourses carry. It finds that weibo-sphere acted more like a pressure valve than a public sphere. Emotional criticisms dominated online discussions and emotions spread. Conflict discourses trigger anger and reduce dialogue. This study is useful to emotional framing theory construction, understanding online forum in China and online discussion practice.
作者 潘霁 刘晖
出处 《国际新闻界》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第11期19-33,共15页 Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication
基金 2014年国家社科青年项目"主流媒体环境污染报道网络公信力研究"(项目编号:14CXW039)的资助
关键词 微博 网络舆情 情感表达 归因 雾霾报道 Microblog, online public opinion, emotional expression, attribution, smog coverage
  • 相关文献

参考文献31

  • 1Abramson, J. B., Arterton, E C. & Orren, G. R. (1988). The electronic commonwealth." The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. New York: Basic Books.
  • 2Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A. & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, Special Issue: Affect in Social Judgments and Cognition, 24 (1), 45-62.
  • 3Bohman, J. (2007). Political communication and the epistemic value of diversity: Deliberation and legitimation in media societies. Communication Theory, 17 (4), 348-355.
  • 4Coleman, S. & Gctze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.
  • 5Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychologica] Review, 82 (6), 407-428.
  • 6Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four "positions." New Media & Society, 13 (6), 855-872.
  • 7Dahlgren, P. (2007). Civic identity and net activism: The frame of radical democracy. In Dahlberg, L. & Siapera, E. (eds). Radical democracy and the Intemet: Interrogating theory and practice. New York: Palgrave, 55-72.
  • 8Deleuze, G. (1983). Nietzsche and philosophy (translated by Hugh Tomlinson). New York:Columbia University Press.
  • 9Fishkin, J. S., Iyengar, S. & Luskin, R. (2005). Deliberative public opinion in presidential primaries: Evidence from the online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the Voice and Citizenship conference, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, April 22-24.
  • 10Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977(edited by Colin Gordon), New York: Pantheon Books.

同被引文献317

二级引证文献216

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部