【摘要】：文章對比了史學(xué)和新聞學(xué)對汪康年的研究,認(rèn)為汪康年是一位被新聞史誤讀的報(bào)人。史學(xué)研究認(rèn)為,汪康年是一名維新派人士,汪梁之爭是學(xué)術(shù)之爭、管理權(quán)之爭,汪康年是張之洞的代理人的說法不正確;新聞史研究認(rèn)為,汪康年是洋務(wù)派人士,汪梁之爭是維新派和洋務(wù)派之爭,汪康年是張之洞的代理人。文章重點(diǎn)探討了汪康年被誤讀的的深層次原因:即研究范式、方法論、具體研究方法、治學(xué)態(tài)度等因素共同導(dǎo)致了汪康年的被誤讀。學(xué)科的差異性和評價(jià)主體的差異性并不能成為誤讀汪康年的借口,新聞史研究要遵守史學(xué)研究的規(guī)范,運(yùn)用史學(xué)研究的方法,評價(jià)盡可能地做到客觀、公正。
[Abstract]:This paper compares the studies of Wang Kangnian by historiography and journalism, and concludes that Wang Kangnian is a newspaper man who has been misread by the history of journalism. According to the historical studies, Wang Kangnian is a reformist, Wang Liang's argument is academic and management power's, and Wang Kangnian's agent is not correct. The study of news history holds that Wang Kangnian is a Westernist, Wang Liang's contention is a struggle between the Reformists and the Westernists, and Wang Kangnian is an agent of Zhang Zhidong. This paper focuses on the deep causes of Wang Kangnian's misreading: the research paradigm, methodology, specific research methods, academic attitude and other factors lead to the misreading of Wang Kangnian. The difference of subject and evaluation subject can not be used as an excuse to misread Wang Kangnian. The study of news history should abide by the norms of historical research and use the method of historical research to evaluate as objectively and impartially as possible.
【作者單位】： 西藏民族大學(xué)新聞傳播學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：G219.29
，

本文編號(hào)：2340351