調查新聞學V.S.公共新聞學：兩個「公共領域」新聞理想型的對話與交融

林照真

媒體一向被視為是民主社會的重要指標，傳統上也認定媒體對促成公共利益扮演著極重要角色，然而當今新聞生態受到市場與公關產業影響甚鉅，已嚴重危及媒體做為「公共領域」的理念。此一現象已引發傳播學界與實務界的憂慮，並燃起新聞學的辯論。其中，基於傳統新聞理念而來的「調查新聞學」，與發跡於公民運動的「公共新聞學」，都已成為目前解決新聞困境的主要思考方向。
「調查新聞學」與「公共新聞學」有著截然不同的新聞哲學與新聞標的，亦連帶影響新聞寫作方式與新聞倫理，對後續新聞界的發展影響極深。本文擬透過這兩大新聞理念的對話，並以民主政治為時代背景，進一步釐清新聞記者與社區大眾的角色與關係，以求在新聞失去社會信任與遠景的悲觀時刻，為未來的新聞發展，提供可能的出路與方向。

"Investigative journalism" & "public journalism" are two different ideal types of public sphere of journalism. These notions of "public sphere" and "public good" came to ensure the exposure of corruption and the participation of people from community. The principle of "public sphere" coincides with the principles of "investigative journalism" and "public journalism".
There are different histories of these 2 journalisms. "Investigative journalism" develops more than 100 years. Public journalism was emerging in 1988, maybe just as infancy as Rosen said.
According to completely different journalism philosophy, journalists will have different crafts and ethics of journalism. It is important for the debate and dialogue between the 2 journalisms.

調查報導，公共新聞學，公共領域，民主，公關

investigative Journalism, public journalism, public sphere, democracy, and public relation

2005.07.15

已授權

2005S33.pdf