本文選題：媒介審判 + 輿論監(jiān)督��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：上世紀(jì)90年代末，“媒介審判”開始進(jìn)入研究者視野，在相關(guān)領(lǐng)域引起廣泛討論。時至今日，“媒介審判”相關(guān)研究成果浩如煙海，但“媒介審判”現(xiàn)象仍時有發(fā)生。筆者認(rèn)為，其最直接和最根本的原因，是媒體缺乏應(yīng)有的自律精神和法律意識。同時，實務(wù)界的規(guī)范細(xì)則尚未出臺，學(xué)術(shù)界關(guān)于媒介監(jiān)督的合理性邊界研究較為模糊，這兩點也是“媒介審判”現(xiàn)象未得到有效防范的主要原因。新聞媒體對于“新聞自由”的權(quán)利訴求與其“公眾輿論”代言人的假定身份，為其不當(dāng)介入司法報道預(yù)設(shè)了一個看似合理的前提。筆者認(rèn)為僅孤立的進(jìn)行個案分析，難免囿于一角。想要真正廓清“媒介審判”與輿論監(jiān)督的根本區(qū)別，體系的梳理“媒介審判”現(xiàn)象發(fā)生的成因及機(jī)理，應(yīng)將“媒體審判”置于“傳媒與司法”發(fā)展進(jìn)程的宏觀視閾之中。本文背倚“傳媒與司法”研究領(lǐng)域的豐富學(xué)術(shù)成果，從以下幾個方面論證個人觀點： 第一章是緒論部分，介紹了本文的研究背景、研究意義、研究現(xiàn)狀、理論框架和分析方法。 第二章是案例分析，筆者以時間為軸，選取了改革開放以來的四個媒介監(jiān)督或媒介審判的典型案例。試圖通過比較分析、梳理我國媒介監(jiān)督環(huán)境的變化及“媒介審判”現(xiàn)象的流變，呈現(xiàn)媒介監(jiān)督與“媒介審判”的區(qū)別。通過分析筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)隨著政治及媒介環(huán)境的變化，，媒介監(jiān)督的屬性逐漸生發(fā)出令新聞界和司法界都不堪煩擾的枝杈，從我國特有的黨政權(quán)力的延伸及基本的公眾權(quán)利的讓渡兩方面，逐漸異化成為媒介從業(yè)者個人利益擴(kuò)張的手段，甚至淪落為媒介公關(guān)的工具。 第三章是理論分析。筆者圍繞輿論監(jiān)督的內(nèi)涵、屬性、合理性前提及作用進(jìn)行研究。又針對媒介審判的含義、動因及負(fù)面影響展開論述。試圖厘清“媒介審判”與媒介監(jiān)督的界限。 第四章是對策研究。筆者從媒介對策及司法對策兩方面，進(jìn)行有效防范“媒介審判”現(xiàn)象的可行性探究。
[Abstract]:At the end of 1990's, Media trial began to enter the field of study and aroused extensive discussion in related fields. Up to now, the related research results of Media trial are vast, but the phenomenon of Media trial still occurs from time to time. The author believes that the most direct and fundamental reason is the lack of self-discipline and legal consciousness of the media. At the same time, the standard rules of the practical circles have not been issued yet, and the study on the rational boundary of media supervision in academic circles is rather vague. These two points are also the main reasons why the phenomenon of "media trial" has not been effectively prevented. News media's right to "press freedom" and its "public opinion" spokesman's assumed identity presupposes a seemingly reasonable premise for their improper intervention in judicial reports. I believe that only isolated case analysis, inevitably limited to a corner. In order to truly clarify the fundamental difference between "media trial" and public opinion supervision, the causes and mechanism of the phenomenon of "media trial" should be sorted out, and the "media trial" should be placed in the macro perspective of the development process of "media and judicature". Based on the rich academic achievements in the field of "Media and Justice", this paper demonstrates personal views from the following aspects: The first chapter is the introduction, which introduces the research background, research significance, research status, theoretical framework and analytical methods. The second chapter is the case analysis. The author selects four typical cases of media supervision or media trial since the reform and opening up to the outside world. Through comparative analysis, this paper tries to sort out the change of media supervision environment and the change of "media trial" phenomenon in our country, and to present the difference between media supervision and "media trial". Through the analysis, the author finds that with the change of politics and media environment, the nature of media supervision gradually gives rise to branches that make the press and judicial circles undisturbed. From the two aspects of the extension of the party and government power and the transfer of the basic public rights, it has gradually become a means for media practitioners to expand their personal interests, and even a tool for media public relations. The third chapter is the theoretical analysis. The author studies the connotation, attribute, rational premise and function of public opinion supervision. It also discusses the meaning, motivation and negative influence of media trial. This paper tries to clarify the boundary between media trial and media supervision. The fourth chapter is the countermeasure research. The author probes into the feasibility of effectively preventing the phenomenon of "medium trial" from two aspects of media countermeasure and judicial countermeasure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：G206

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳力丹;劉寧潔;;規(guī)范傳媒的庭審報道[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2007年02期

2 庹繼光;;“媒體審判”:防衛(wèi)性權(quán)利的異化——對輿論監(jiān)督司法的合法性解讀[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2010年05期

3 何家弘;監(jiān)督,還是介入?──論大眾傳媒對司法公正的影響[J];當(dāng)代司法;1999年09期

4 楊擊;;窮人、富人和傳媒正義——解讀新聞生產(chǎn)中的平民主義策略[J];國際新聞界;2006年02期

5 袁靖華;;論媒介正義的概念及其維度——基于拉斯韋爾“5W”傳播模式[J];國際新聞界;2012年04期

6 顧培東;論對司法的傳媒監(jiān)督[J];法學(xué)研究;1999年06期

7 賀衛(wèi)方;傳媒與司法三題[J];法學(xué)研究;1998年06期

8 庹繼光,李纓;“媒介失語”比“媒介審判”更可怕——以一個典型的個案為例[J];新聞界;2005年04期

9 慕明春;“媒介審判”的機(jī)理與對策[J];現(xiàn)代傳播;2005年01期

10 陳力丹;易正林;;輿論監(jiān)督中傳媒的責(zé)任是“監(jiān)”還是“督”?[J];現(xiàn)代傳播(中國傳媒大學(xué)學(xué)報);2008年01期

本文編號：1879562