Greenpeace v. shell: media exploitation and the social amplification of risk framework (SARF)
Greenpeace v. shell: media exploitation and the social amplification of risk framework (SARF)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13669870500166898
复制
发表时间：
2005-10-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Bakir, V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bakir, V
本文探讨了风险的社会放大框架（SARF）在理解媒体在风险沟通中的作用的有用性。自1988年成立以来，SARF得到了进一步发展，并因其（除其他外）而受到批评：静态的传播概念;缺乏对关键行为者如何使用媒体的关注;缺乏对媒体作为放大站的系统关注;以及对媒体如何作为放大站运作的简单假设。一个复杂的重介导的风险沟通的案例研究-绿色和平组织和壳牌之间的斗争在深海处置的布伦特斯帕尔石油钻井平台（1995年）-是用来探讨是否SARF在其目前的发展阶段经得起这些批评。它的结论是，这些批评更多的是研究人员如何使用SARF的后果，而不是故障的SARF本身。利用SARF框架和定性案例研究方法，系统分析了相关媒体在Spar事件风险社会放大中的作用，揭示了绿色和平组织如何利用媒体成功传达三个风险信号，以及壳牌反应的不足之处;并揭示了放大站内的分层，包括媒体本身。
This paper examines the usefulness of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) in understanding the media's role in risk communication. Since the SARF was created in 1988, it has been both further developed and critiqued for (amongst other things) its: static conception of communication; lack of attention towards how key actors use the media; lack of systematic attention towards the media as an amplification station; and simplistic assumptions of how the media operate as an amplification station. A complex heavily-mediated risk communication case study-the battle between Greenpeace and Shell over the deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar oil rig (1995)-is used to explore whether the SARF in its current stage of development stands up to these critiques. It is concluded that these critiques are more a consequence of how researchers have used the SARF rather than a fault of the SARF itself. Using the SARF framework with a qualitative case study methodology enabled systematic analysis of the role of relevant media in the social amplification of risk in the Spar issue, exposing how Greenpeace used the media to successfully communicate three risk signals, together with the inadequacies of Shell's reactions; and revealing the layering within amplification stations, including the media itself.