Advancing Media Production Research
Advancing Media Production Research
复制标题
推进媒体制作研究
DOI：
10.1057/9781137541949_2
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Schlesinger P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schlesinger P
网络广播组织，同时迅速发展自己的土著传统。[2]当时并非所有的生产研究都集中在新闻方面。虽然新闻无疑是研究的中心对象，但也有关于时事、纪录片和电影制作的新颖观察工作。[3]最初，这是一个明显的英美合资企业，其驱动力是为了揭开网络新闻的社会中心定义力量的神秘面纱，并打破其合法性，特别是对客观性和公正性的职业要求，随后增加了追随者，显著地改变了研究对象，并大大扩大了地理范围，本书充分证明了这一点。我对一种奇怪的观点很感兴趣，即所谓的媒体民族志的“第一波”最终成为研究的正统束缚，需要“第二波”才能重新思考问题。不言而喻，新闻制作在数字时代发生了巨大变化，新闻业的边界变得越来越不确定和有争议，报纸和广播的体制形式也是如此。由于数字技术的引入带来的创新，以及对既定的时间性模式和随之而来的生产周期的明显破坏，现在有了更多的复杂性。因此，不言而喻，我们需要一种新的方法来分析我们现在所发现的世界。我当时沿着其他人进行的工作，肯定是在比今天更稳定的条件下、在更容易理解的媒体环境中进行的。一旦认识到它的特殊性，并确定了使它扎根的普遍条件，就很难理解为什么这些条件应该被视为对后继工作的障碍，或者为什么所获得的见解应该被抛弃，而不是为批判性的重新工作提供基础，并且在仍然有分析购买的情况下，适应当前的情况。事实上，霍华德·坦伯（2014：75）最近提出了一个更广泛的媒体社会学复兴的案例，他认为，任何当代对媒体分析的社会学定义和框架的修订，都应该考虑新闻机构与其他机构（如私营公司、政府和游说团体）的运作和互动方式的现有连续性。在要求包括使用新技术、演员和角色配置时，媒体研究人员不应忘记，新闻制作的资助、影响和验证方式有几个连续性。
network broadcasting organizations and, at the same time, rapidly developing an indigenous tradition of its own. 2 Not all production studies undertaken at that time focused on journalism. Although the news was undoubtedly the central object of study, there was also novel observational work on current affairs, documentary, and film production. 3 What began originally as a markedly Anglo-American venture, driven by a desire to demystify the socially central definitional powers of network news and to unpick its legitimations–notably occupational claims to objectivity and impartiality–has subsequently multiplied adherents, significantly shifted its objects of study, and greatly widened its geographical reach, as this volume amply testifies. I am intrigued by the curious view that the so-called ‘first wave’of media ethnographies eventually became an orthodox trammel on research, requiring a ‘second wave’in order to think matters through afresh. It is self-evident that news production has greatly changed in the digital age, when the boundaries of journalism have become increasingly unsettled and contested, as has the institutional form of newspapers and broadcasting. There is now more complexity due to innovations resulting from the introduction of digital technologies, and obvious disruption of established patterns of temporality and the production cycles that went with these. So it goes without saying that a new approach is required to analyse the world as we now find it. The work that I undertook, along with others at the time, was certainly conducted under more stable conditions in a more easily decipherable media environment than today’s. Once its particularity is recognized, and the prevailing conditions that gave it anchorage identified, it is hard to see why these should be regarded as imposing an obstacle to successor work, or why the insights garnered should be discarded, rather than providing a basis for a critical reworking and, where there is still analytical purchase, adaptation to present circumstance. Indeed, making a broader case for a revival of media sociology in general, Howard Tumber (2014: 75) has recently argued that any contemporary revision of sociological definitions and frameworks for media analysis should also consider existing continuities in the way that news organizations operate and interact with other institutions such as private companies, governments and lobbies. In the requirement to include the use of new technologies, actors, and the configuration of roles, media researchers should not forget that there are several continuities in the way that news production is funded, influenced and validated.