2012年--廣播電視新聞學(xué)外文翻譯--對(duì)公共電視臺(tái)新聞和商業(yè)電視臺(tái)新聞的對(duì)比分析（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文4867字，3085單詞,17640字符</p><p><b>　　譯文原文出處： </b></p><p>　　Stephen Cushion ，Justin Lewis ，Gordon Neil Ramsay The impact of interventionist regulation in reshaping news agend

2、as: A comparative analysis of public and commercially funded television journalism [J].</p><p>　　Journalism , 24 January 2012: 1–19</p><p>　　干預(yù)監(jiān)管對(duì)重塑新聞議程的影響</p><p>　　——對(duì)公共電視臺(tái)新聞和商業(yè)電視臺(tái)

3、新聞的對(duì)比分析</p><p>　　Stephen Cushion ，Justin Lewis ，Gordon Neil Ramsay</p><p><b>　　簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　近幾年，很多政治家、政策決策者和媒體專家已經(jīng)逐漸的認(rèn)識(shí)到傳播媒體的監(jiān)管是一個(gè)既繁瑣又官僚的工作，而且會(huì)妨礙創(chuàng)作的自由和創(chuàng)新（弗里德曼，2008；麥克

4、切斯尼，2008；惠勒，2004）。雖然這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)已經(jīng)在美國(guó)廣泛傳播了一段時(shí)間，但是在歐洲，尤其是英國(guó)，這個(gè)“自由市場(chǎng)”式的媒介決策觀念更加流行（見巴賽特，2010）。</p><p>　　當(dāng)然這并不能表明有效的監(jiān)管架構(gòu)失去了作用，也不能說明“自由市場(chǎng)”式的傳播系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)完全取代了公共服務(wù)的傳播系統(tǒng)。在這方面，許多歐盟國(guó)家維持了一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的公共媒介服務(wù)和一個(gè)穩(wěn)健的媒體監(jiān)管框架。特別是歐盟，已經(jīng)開始尋求重新規(guī)范媒體市場(chǎng)

5、，并防止不受約束的媒體統(tǒng)治市場(chǎng)。雖然許多國(guó)家的政府對(duì)媒體努力進(jìn)行重新監(jiān)管，但是對(duì)近幾年的媒介政治辯論持續(xù)的分析卻顯示，大多數(shù)國(guó)家強(qiáng)加給傳播者的監(jiān)管更少了而不是更多了（Freedman，2008；McChesney，2008；Puppis，2008年）。</p><p>　　媒體學(xué)者們對(duì)放松媒體監(jiān)管的全球影響既有贊同又有批判（見Bennett，2004）。由于放松監(jiān)管使更多的商業(yè)市場(chǎng)蓬勃發(fā)展，Norris（2000

6、）認(rèn)為信息化的社會(huì)環(huán)境由此得到了更大范圍的可用媒體來源。在這種情況下，商業(yè)電視新聞的興起與更多民主選擇的供應(yīng)結(jié)合在了一起，相比較那種公共服務(wù)所提供的居高臨下、曲高和寡的新聞，觀眾們可以根據(jù)他們的需要挑選更具娛樂性的節(jié)目（Baum，2003；Zaller，2003）。然而，許多學(xué)者質(zhì)疑這種新的商業(yè)化節(jié)目的民主意義。Hallin在20世紀(jì)80年代寫關(guān)于放松監(jiān)管所造成的結(jié)果的文章時(shí)，表示日益擴(kuò)大的有線新聞所造成的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)意味著美國(guó)新聞已赫然成為頻

7、道之間的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。Hallin（1994）認(rèn)為美國(guó)新聞的特征已經(jīng)改變，因?yàn)樾侣勚饕怯脕韸蕵范皇前咽澜缟系南鬟f給受眾。十多年后，Thussu（2007）認(rèn)為這些觀念隨著公共電視的逐漸賣出和新聞流派由于市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的重塑傳播到了全世界。換句話說，信息環(huán)境正隨著媒體的私有化而逐漸消失。</p><p>　　雖然很多學(xué)者對(duì)放松監(jiān)管的媒體文化表示批判，但是還僅有很少的人去關(guān)注對(duì)媒體的再監(jiān)管如何能夠提高而不是降低新聞的質(zhì)量。

8、這是片面的，因?yàn)楹茈y去證明——用超出一般意義上的支持方式——媒體監(jiān)管如何能夠通過“輕微改變”系統(tǒng)所不能的方式提高媒體內(nèi)涵。當(dāng)然，有分析指出媒介監(jiān)管存在國(guó)家的和不斷增長(zhǎng)的超國(guó)家的變化 (Freedman, 2008: 13–15; McChesney, 2000, 2008; Wheeler, 2004)，還有分析進(jìn)行了關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)換監(jiān)管模式的一般性討論，這些監(jiān)管模式模式包括放松監(jiān)管、再監(jiān)管還有存在于關(guān)鍵利益相關(guān)者之間的更加靈活的共同監(jiān)管和獨(dú)立

9、監(jiān)管。例如，在歐洲范圍內(nèi)，Bardoel和D’Haenens（2008：348）肯定地表示：</p><p>　　“……從保護(hù)機(jī)制到推動(dòng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的變化；政治上的任務(wù)和具體運(yùn)作上的任務(wù)的分離（如獨(dú)立的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)）；從垂直監(jiān)管（具體部門的監(jiān)管）到水平監(jiān)管的轉(zhuǎn)變；從國(guó)家監(jiān)管到超國(guó)家和國(guó)際間的監(jiān)管的位移；還有從國(guó)家的監(jiān)管到個(gè)人和合作的監(jiān)管的變化，這種個(gè)人和合作的監(jiān)管是獨(dú)立個(gè)人和社會(huì)團(tuán)體更加積極參與監(jiān)管的體現(xiàn)。”</p&g

10、t;<p>　　這種辯論往往圍繞具體立法上的話題，分析一般性的情況或帶有微小細(xì)節(jié)的行為或指令(Bardoel 和 D’Haenens, 2008; Harvey, 2006; Livingstone et al., 2007; Wheeler, 2004)。然而，媒體和新聞研究鮮為人所理解的是在媒體行業(yè)被放松監(jiān)管或再監(jiān)管之后的不同種類新聞報(bào)道監(jiān)管框架帶來的可衡量和對(duì)比的影響。</p><p>　　在

11、這項(xiàng)研究中，我們進(jìn)行了一個(gè)全面的內(nèi)容分析來探索一個(gè)案例，這個(gè)案例是關(guān)于一個(gè)媒體監(jiān)管者——英國(guó)廣播公司信托基金——如何試圖重塑BBC新聞的議程框架，從而使節(jié)目更加準(zhǔn)確的反映英國(guó)國(guó)家與其新興的政治機(jī)關(guān)的情況。英國(guó)的電視新聞傳播者不得不去適應(yīng)并能對(duì)過去十年當(dāng)主要權(quán)利從威斯敏斯特轉(zhuǎn)到蘇格蘭威爾士和北愛爾蘭，政治系統(tǒng)從集中權(quán)力到權(quán)力下放的時(shí)的深刻轉(zhuǎn)變。簡(jiǎn)言之，我們的研究就是用實(shí)證探索一系列具體的監(jiān)管指導(dǎo)是否對(duì)英國(guó)和分權(quán)政策的電視報(bào)道在數(shù)量和性質(zhì)上

12、有任何可量化的影響。</p><p>　　國(guó)家對(duì)商業(yè)和公共服務(wù)廣播新聞的干預(yù) </p><p>　　對(duì)媒體內(nèi)容的公共干預(yù)，更具體的說是廣播新聞很大程度上受到國(guó)家如何平衡商業(yè)和公共服務(wù)的優(yōu)先級(jí)的影響。Moe和Syvertsen (2009)確定了三種公共服務(wù)傳播模式（PSB）：與北歐一些國(guó)家相類似的廣泛干預(yù)措施；一些通常僅用于保護(hù)民族文化市場(chǎng)的公共服務(wù)干預(yù)措施，特別是在法國(guó)、加拿大和

13、澳大利亞；以及極少的干預(yù)措施，在這中情況下公共傳播模式并沒有被很好的創(chuàng)建和支持，且被認(rèn)為是“商業(yè)補(bǔ)充資源”，而不是“作為國(guó)家廣播公司” (2009:398 - 399)。雖然我們能夠說出傳播系統(tǒng)在國(guó)家級(jí)別的特點(diǎn)，但是仍然存在國(guó)家間的特殊變化，這些特殊變化因公共服務(wù)和商業(yè)渠道受到不同程度的監(jiān)管而存在兩種體系。跨國(guó)媒體的增長(zhǎng)和商業(yè)渠道的擴(kuò)展更加劇了這一點(diǎn)，使公共服務(wù)傳播系統(tǒng)生態(tài)受到削弱(Tracey, 1998)。</p>&

14、lt;p>　　在大多數(shù)干預(yù)主義國(guó)家，國(guó)家授權(quán)的媒體壟斷了媒體行業(yè)，直到二十世紀(jì)80年代。在1980年代，新技術(shù)的出現(xiàn)為帶來了新的機(jī)會(huì)，新的跨國(guó)媒體市場(chǎng)首先開發(fā)出了第一條電纜，隨之又發(fā)展了衛(wèi)星傳播技術(shù)(Chalaby, 2009)。許多國(guó)家政府受到豐厚財(cái)政收入前景的驅(qū)動(dòng)，開始了放松對(duì)媒體管制的過程，精簡(jiǎn)可能阻礙經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和自由媒體所有權(quán)的立法法案。二十世紀(jì)80年代，當(dāng)有線電視和衛(wèi)星傳播進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)時(shí)，廣播政策隨著更廣泛的去國(guó)有化工業(yè)的政治

15、經(jīng)濟(jì)變化，接納了全球化的力量。這些情況主要發(fā)生在歐洲，傳播政策在歐洲最初是在有充足公共資金支持的環(huán)境下發(fā)展起來的。但是當(dāng)廣播新聞的監(jiān)管仍在大多數(shù)歐洲國(guó)家被當(dāng)作健康的民主文化時(shí)（Bardoel 和 D’Haenens, 2008; Cushion, 2012），很多其他國(guó)家已經(jīng)允許商業(yè)傳播的發(fā)展受到較少的監(jiān)管要求。</p><p>　　近幾十年以來，無線電和電視廣播領(lǐng)域的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施迅速發(fā)展，商業(yè)廣播公司不了避免地背負(fù)

16、上了公共服務(wù)領(lǐng)域的負(fù)擔(dān)，比如被要求制作上乘的地方新聞節(jié)目，而這些花費(fèi)都很大。 </p><p>　　在由此產(chǎn)生的資金壓力下，商業(yè)廣播公司認(rèn)為其公共服務(wù)義務(wù)使自身在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中處于劣勢(shì)地位，這也為大多數(shù)人所接受。比如，英國(guó)四大廣播公司之一的獨(dú)立電視公司長(zhǎng)久以來一直承擔(dān)著最繁重的社會(huì)服務(wù)項(xiàng)目，當(dāng)前其高層卻在深思熟慮要在2014年其公共服務(wù)執(zhí)照過期之后減少甚至完全放棄其當(dāng)?shù)匦侣剰V播項(xiàng)目。（布朗，2011）保守黨派的杰里米亨特

17、是新當(dāng)選的文化，奧林匹克運(yùn)動(dòng)，媒體和體育部長(zhǎng)，一直以來大力主張簡(jiǎn)歷商業(yè)性質(zhì)的本地新聞廣播電臺(tái)，在此之前他擱置了工黨當(dāng)政時(shí)的IFNCs項(xiàng)目，即獨(dú)立投資新聞聯(lián)合社，此項(xiàng)目旨在促進(jìn)本地新聞傳播領(lǐng)域公私合作，以保證其正常運(yùn)作。雖然這些以市場(chǎng)為導(dǎo)向的雄偉計(jì)劃都在不同程度上被縮減了規(guī)模，（部分委托報(bào)告質(zhì)疑其商業(yè)可行性，比如2010年的Shott），這兩個(gè)項(xiàng)目都反映出了對(duì)于解決商業(yè)團(tuán)體退出地方新聞廣播領(lǐng)域問題的需求。另外，英國(guó)廣播公司也面臨著又一項(xiàng)壓

18、力，要求其負(fù)責(zé)向除英格蘭以外的地區(qū)傳播地方新聞熱點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　現(xiàn)在我們注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到一個(gè)案例研究，那就是公共服務(wù)廣播公司BBC是如何試圖在英國(guó)權(quán)力下放的大背景下管理其新聞報(bào)道工作的，并且對(duì)比一下其電視新聞報(bào)道和商業(yè)廣播的異同，后者是在“輕微的”監(jiān)管框架下運(yùn)作的。</p><p><b>　　衡量干預(yù)產(chǎn)生的影響</b></p><p>

19、　　作為其職權(quán)范圍的一部分，BBC廣播公司信托機(jī)構(gòu)于2007年委托加的夫新聞媒體文化學(xué)校進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)量化和質(zhì)化相結(jié)合的分析，課題就是BBC及其他商業(yè)電視新聞報(bào)道和權(quán)力下放體制。（Lewis 等 2008）。</p><p>　　進(jìn)行這項(xiàng)調(diào)查的原因是有人認(rèn)為BBC在進(jìn)行新聞報(bào)道時(shí)對(duì)待聯(lián)合王國(guó)的四個(gè)組成部分，即英格蘭、蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭沒有做到一視同仁。說的更具體一些，BBC沒有準(zhǔn)確地對(duì)英國(guó)的政治現(xiàn)實(shí)做客觀的報(bào)道。

20、英國(guó)的國(guó)家權(quán)力已不再像以前一樣集中在倫敦，而是被下放到在蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛爾蘭建立的新政府（1999年建立）手中。 </p><p>　　這些機(jī)構(gòu)現(xiàn)在手握很大的權(quán)力，各自在關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域，比如健康和教育等指定的政策也越來越多樣化。每個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)手中都握有不同程度的立法職責(zé)，在過去大約十年之中，這些權(quán)力進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大，預(yù)計(jì)將來在財(cái)政和政策制定方面權(quán)力還將進(jìn)一步下放。</p><p>　　由于商業(yè)和政府服務(wù)

21、系統(tǒng)都依舊運(yùn)作著覆蓋整個(gè)英國(guó)的電視新聞節(jié)目，權(quán)力下方體制使得政治問題的報(bào)道變得更具挑戰(zhàn)性。這一問題在我們的第一項(xiàng)廣播報(bào)道審查（Lewis 等 2008）中已經(jīng)得到體。這份報(bào)告經(jīng)廣泛分析后得出結(jié)論，公共和商業(yè)廣播公司必須增大其在除英格蘭以外英國(guó)地區(qū)的新聞報(bào)道以確保更加準(zhǔn)確屬實(shí)地反映蘇格蘭。威爾士和北愛爾蘭現(xiàn)在享有的權(quán)力。由于此項(xiàng)研究是BBC廣播公司信托機(jī)構(gòu)委托的，其他商業(yè)廣播公司沒有義務(wù)對(duì)其勸告和建議進(jìn)行回應(yīng)。然而，此項(xiàng)報(bào)告中得出的結(jié)論卻

22、引發(fā)了人們對(duì)廣播公司的討論，并且被主流和專業(yè)媒體大篇幅報(bào)道（例如 Gibson，2008）。其他商業(yè)廣播公司雖然沒有BBC的公信力和社會(huì)責(zé)任，但由于這項(xiàng)報(bào)告的結(jié)論具有普遍意義，仍應(yīng)該利用這次機(jī)會(huì)反思自身。但就像我們?cè)诮Y(jié)論中討論過的那樣，Ofcom（英國(guó)電信管理機(jī)構(gòu)）那種缺少干預(yù)的態(tài)度和做法或許會(huì)限制其能力，使其不能更加積極地鼓勵(lì)和支持商業(yè)廣播公司對(duì)其新聞報(bào)道方式進(jìn)行改革。</p><p>　　我們對(duì)2007年和1

23、0月和11月共八個(gè)星期和2009年（大約兩年后）BBC和商業(yè)電視新聞節(jié)目的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了兩項(xiàng)全面的分析（在BBC信托機(jī)構(gòu)的干預(yù)之前）。對(duì)于BBC電視節(jié)目的分析包括1點(diǎn)的新聞，6點(diǎn)的新聞，10點(diǎn)的新聞，4點(diǎn)的新聞和BBC新聞?lì)l道的每天新聞一小時(shí)節(jié)目（星期一到星期五下午五點(diǎn)到六點(diǎn)，星期六和星期天下午六點(diǎn)到七點(diǎn)）對(duì)于商業(yè)電視新聞節(jié)目的分析囊括了第四頻道的新聞（包括星期六和星期天），獨(dú)立電視公司10點(diǎn)的新聞以及其星期六和星期天的新聞，每天一小時(shí)

24、的天氣新聞（星期一到星期五下午五點(diǎn)到六點(diǎn)，星期六和星期天下午六點(diǎn)到七點(diǎn)），一共五項(xiàng)，兩項(xiàng)分析一共研究了4794條新聞。</p><p>　　研究者建立起一套標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系來衡量新聞報(bào)道的公正性和準(zhǔn)確性，檢驗(yàn)對(duì)英國(guó)四個(gè)組成地區(qū)的報(bào)道是否平衡、準(zhǔn)確，是否有利于人們了解新型的權(quán)力下放政府的運(yùn)作。為了衡量整個(gè)英國(guó)不同地區(qū)和宗教群體的新聞報(bào)道范圍，每一條新聞的報(bào)道者和報(bào)道地點(diǎn)都被量化處理。</p><p>

25、;　　同時(shí)，每條新聞都被分類，以確定哪種題材的新聞?wù)紦?jù)主導(dǎo)地位，并且，更多處于比較的目的，衡量英國(guó)的權(quán)力下放政治體制的地位和發(fā)展情況。</p><p>　　我們的研究議題很具挑戰(zhàn)性。由于其他三個(gè)地區(qū)很多權(quán)力與英國(guó)政府的權(quán)力重疊，權(quán)力下放的本質(zhì)有時(shí)理解起來很復(fù)雜，這要求我們?cè)诮庾x新聞報(bào)道時(shí)要采取更加復(fù)雜的方式，或許能使我們理解在多大程度上新聞中國(guó)這能理解和維護(hù)權(quán)力下放政治體制。這就意味著我們?cè)谶M(jìn)行分析時(shí)，要注重更多

26、的發(fā)散性的細(xì)節(jié)，這與大多數(shù)新聞實(shí)質(zhì)分析的要求不同，后者往往只需要進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單的分門別類。由于研究結(jié)果需要詳細(xì)解讀，我們?cè)诔尸F(xiàn)出結(jié)果時(shí)討論我們是如何制定出這項(xiàng)規(guī)則框架的。盡管如此，這項(xiàng)規(guī)則框架的可靠度仍然很高，分?jǐn)?shù)達(dá)到90到100之間（見附錄）。能達(dá)到這樣的效果，是與大量的試驗(yàn)，常規(guī)性的小組會(huì)議和不斷發(fā)展的精準(zhǔn)并且復(fù)雜的價(jià)值觀和衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)分不開的。</p><p>　　為了測(cè)評(píng)BBC信托機(jī)構(gòu)的干預(yù)可能產(chǎn)生的影響，我們寄希

27、望于分析電視新聞，而不是理解內(nèi)部那些有可能導(dǎo)致其新聞報(bào)道方式變革或引起觀眾對(duì)下放式報(bào)道的理解的陰謀詭計(jì)。換種說法，我們沒有能力去追尋BBC管理層做出的個(gè)人決定去履行其信托機(jī)構(gòu)給出的建議背后的個(gè)人或職業(yè)上的動(dòng)機(jī)。我們也不能開誠(chéng)布公地說，下放式報(bào)道中產(chǎn)生的任何變化會(huì)自動(dòng)提高觀眾的知識(shí)和參與度。我們唯一能評(píng)估的就是英國(guó)最據(jù)權(quán)威和影響力的新聞機(jī)構(gòu)所提供給民眾的信息的質(zhì)量和本質(zhì)。為了確定“傷亡人數(shù)”，我們的結(jié)論都來自于一項(xiàng)對(duì)BBC信托機(jī)構(gòu)干預(yù)之前

28、和之后大量新聞報(bào)道的詳細(xì)分析。我們?nèi)匀豢梢愿鶕?jù)BBC管理層對(duì)第一項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果做出的反應(yīng)來估量電視新聞內(nèi)容實(shí)質(zhì)的變化。這些理由很具有說服力，因?yàn)樗鼈兩钊敕治隽薆BC干預(yù)之后執(zhí)行的新聞報(bào)道政策，這項(xiàng)干預(yù)很有可能影響了BBC電視新聞的整體理念。</p><p>　　2007年的研究表明BBC在權(quán)力下放政治體制方面的新聞報(bào)道有很多缺陷。隨后，BBC管理層表示將對(duì)其培訓(xùn)和社論政策進(jìn)行大規(guī)模的結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整，在2008年7月還公布

29、了一項(xiàng)行動(dòng)計(jì)劃。雖然針對(duì)BBC新聞搜集方式的內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)改革有很多看法，我們將注意力集中在四條具體的指導(dǎo)方針上，以從經(jīng)驗(yàn)角度出發(fā)探索他們是否會(huì)引起新聞報(bào)道實(shí)質(zhì)的變化。首先，BBC提議每條新聞都貼標(biāo)簽，以反映不同程度的權(quán)力下放和每個(gè)地區(qū)不同的政治重點(diǎn)。因此，BBC的新聞工作者應(yīng)格外注意其傳達(dá)的新聞信息是否適用于每個(gè)地區(qū)各自的實(shí)情。整體而言，每條新聞都應(yīng)植根于地區(qū)特色以保證聽眾和觀眾能理解其政治意義。</p><p>　

30、　其次，不同地區(qū)的政策差異應(yīng)得到更加清楚的解釋。用BBC管理層自己的話說，這“牽扯到反映各自地區(qū)對(duì)其各自發(fā)展的不同看法”。換句話說，覆蓋整個(gè)聯(lián)合王國(guó)的新聞體系應(yīng)該更加精準(zhǔn)，以抓住權(quán)力下放政治體制的復(fù)雜性和不斷變化的本質(zhì)。</p><p><b>　　譯文原文出處： </b></p><p>　　Stephen Cushion ，Justin Lewis ，Gordon

31、 Neil Ramsay The impact of interventionist regulation in reshaping news agendas: A comparative analysis of public and commercially funded television journalism [J].</p><p>　　Journalism , 24 January 2012: 1–1

32、9</p><p>　　The impact of interventionist regulation in reshaping news agendas: A comparative analysis of public and commercially funded television journalism</p><p>　　Introduction</p><

33、;p>　　In recent years, many politicians, policy makers and media professionals have increasingly subscribed to the view that the regulation of broadcast media is a bureaucratic and cumbersome endeavour that inhibits cr

34、eative freedom and innovation (Freedman, 2008; McChesney, 2008; Wheeler, 2004). While this perspective has been widespread in the United States (US) for some time, in Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) in particular this

35、 ‘free market’ impulse to media policymaking has become more prevale</p><p>　　This is not to suggest, of course, that effective regulatory frameworks do not remain in place or that a ‘free market’ system of

36、broadcasting has entirely displaced public service structures. Many European Union (EU) countries, in this respect, have maintained a strong public service presence and robust regulatory frameworks. The EU, in particular

37、, has sought to re-regulate media markets and prevent unfettered market dominance. Nevertheless, for all the re-regulatory efforts of many governments,</p><p>　　The global impact of media deregulation has be

38、en interpreted both favourably and critically by media scholars (see Bennett, 2004, for review). Since deregulation has enabled more commercial markets to flourish, Norris (2000) argues that the information environment h

39、as been enriched with the availability of a wider range of media sources. The rise of commercial television news, in this context, is associated with the supply of more democratic choice since viewers are able to pick an

40、d choose from </p><p>　　While many scholars have been critical of a deregulated media culture, there has been less empirical attention on how re-regulation – where new regulatory requirements are established

41、 – could improve rather than impede the quality of journalism. This is partly because it has often been difficult to demonstrate how regulation – beyond a general sense of upholding standards – can enhance media content

42、in a way that a ‘light touch’ system cannot. There has, of course, been analysis of national and </p><p>　　… a change from protectionism to promotion of competition; the separation of political and operative

43、 tasks (i.e. independent regulatory authorities); the shift from vertical (sector-specific) to horizontal regulation; the transition from national to supra- and international regulation; and the change from state to self

44、- and co-regulation in which private and societal partners are becoming more actively involved in regulation.</p><p>　　Debates of this kind are often framed around the discourses of specific legislation, wit

45、h an act or directive analysed generally or in fine detail (Bardoel and D’Haenens, 2008; Harvey, 2006; Livingstone et al., 2007; Wheeler, 2004). What is less understood in media and journalism studies, however, is the me

46、asurable and comparative impact of different types of regulatory frameworks on news coverage after media industries have been either deregulated or re-regulated.</p><p>　　In this study we draw on a comprehen

47、sive content analysis to explore a case study of how one media regulator, the BBC Trust, attempted to reshape the news agenda of BBC news in order to make programming more accurately reflect the UK nations and its newly

48、devolved political institutions. Television news broadcasters in the UK have had to adapt and respond quickly to the profound shift from a centralised to a devolved political system during the last decade, when substanti

49、al powers shifted from W</p><p>　　State interventions into commercial and public service broadcast journalism</p><p>　　Public interventions into media content and, more specifically, broadcast j

50、ournalism are largely shaped by how nation states balance commercial and public service priorities. Moe and Syvertsen (2009) identify three types of public service broadcasting (PSB) models: broad interventions, associat

51、ed with countries in Northern Europe; some public service intervention, often used to protect markets in national cultures, notably France, Canada and Australia; and minimalist intervention, where PSB is n</p><

52、;p>　　In most interventionist countries, the state-mandated structures dominated the media industries until the 1980s. At this point, new technologies opened up opportunities for new, transnational media markets to dev

53、elop first cable then satellite broadcasting (Chalaby, 2009). Lured by the promise of lucrative revenues, many governments began a process of deregulation, stripping back legislation that might impede growth and liberali

54、sing media ownership laws. As cable and satellite broadcasting enter</p><p>　　As a consequence, recent history has seen the decline of the national public service broadcasting model and its wider regulatory

55、framework (Cushion, 2012; Tambini and Cowling, 2002). A paternalistic approach to state regulation to shape programme content is difficult to sustain when, in the face of emerging commercial markets, growth, freedom and

56、innovation are touted as the broadcasting currency of the future. Politicians and legislators have adopted this currency, with technocratic language us</p><p>　　In more minimalist intervention countries, mos

57、t strikingly the US, the lack of a meaningful public broadcasting presence has meant television journalism has been subject to less regulatory oversight. Commercial broadcasters in the US are encouraged to make programme

58、s the market demands, with minimal interference from the regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). But even in the US this approach has not gone uncontested. During the 1960s, a market deficit of news and c

59、urrent affairs</p><p>　　Since the case study explored in this article is based in the UK, it is necessary to briefly contextualise the UK’s approach to the regulation of television news. UK broadcasters oper

60、ate in a both interventionist and minimalist regulatory environment. The overarching public service structure that once defined both commercial (ITV, Channel 4) and public broadcasters (the BBC) was abandoned in the late

61、 1980s to create a tripartite regulatory system (see Cushion, 2011). Most of the new channels wit</p><p>　　The BBC Trust defines itself as an interventionist watchdog, claiming from a public service perspect

62、ive to ‘have considerable power to wield on your behalf – and when we need to, we act quickly and decisively in your interests’ (BBC Trust website).2 By contrast, Ofcom was conceived as a ‘light touch’ regulator. While ‘

63、light touch’ is a somewhat vague description, it signals an attempt to limit the enforcement of top-down regulation. In its statutory principles, Ofcom states ‘it will operate with</p><p>　　As the commercial

64、 infrastructure of broadcasting has grown stronger in recent decades, pressure has inevitably been exerted on commercial broadcasters with costly public service commitments such as the production of high quality local te

65、levision news. These financial constraints have allowed commercial broadcasters to successfully argue that public service obligations have put them at a competitive disadvantage. So, for example, ITV – which, out of the

66、four main commercial broadcasters in the UK</p><p>　　We now turn to a case study of how a public service broadcaster – the BBC – has attempted to regulate its reporting of the nations and regions in a post-d

67、evolution UK environment and compare its television news coverage with commercial broadcasters operating under a ‘light touch’ regulatory framework.</p><p>　　Measuring the impact of intervention</p>&

68、lt;p>　　As part of its remit, the BBC Trust commissioned the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies in 2007 to carry out a quantitative and qualitative analysis of BBC and commercial television news c

69、overage of UK news and devolved politics (Lewis et al., 2008). This was prompted by concerns that the BBC was not being impartial in its coverage of the four nations that make up the UK – England, Scotland, Wales and Nor

70、thern Ireland – and, more specifically, that it was not accurately rep</p><p>　　Since both commercial and public service channels continue to operate UK-wide news television bulletins, devolution has made th

71、e reporting of politics and political issues far more challenging for journalists. This was reflected in our first review of broadcast coverage of the nations (Lewis et al., 2008), which broadly concluded that the public

72、 and commercial broadcasters needed to considerably increase their coverage beyond England to more accurately report the political powers Scotland, Wales</p><p>　　We carried out a comprehensive content analy

73、sis of BBC and commercial television bulletins gathered during eight-week periods in October and November 2007 (before the BBC Trust’s intervention) and in 2009 (approximately two years later). For BBC television, this i

74、ncluded BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, BBC News at Ten, BBC News (BBC One Saturday and Sunday afternoons),4 and one hour per day of the BBC News Channel (5–6p.m. Monday–Friday, 6–7p.m. Saturday, Sunday). For commercia

75、l television, th</p><p>　　The coding frame was developed to assess impartiality and accuracy, exploring whether coverage of the four nations was balanced, accurate and helpful in understanding the new politi

76、cal world of devolved government. To measure the extent of coverage across the nations and regions in the UK, the story and reporter location of every news item was quantified. At the same time, every news item was categ

77、orised into story subjects to establish which stories dominated and, more for comparative purposes,</p><p>　　Our research objectives were challenging. The nature of devolution can be complex, since many powe

78、rs overlap with Westminster, requiring us to adopt a more sophisticated interpretative framework that might allow us to appreciate the degree to which journalists understand and represent devolved politics. This meant a

79、significantly greater level of discursive detail than that required by most forms of content analysis, which are often limited to measuring simple categories. We discuss how we coded</p><p>　　In examining th

80、e potential impact of the BBC Trust’s intervention, our approach is consigned to the analysis of television news as opposed to understanding the internal machinations that might have led to changes within its journalism

81、or in how viewers understand devolved coverage. We are not able, in other words, to explore the personal or professional motives behind individual decisions by BBC management to execute the recommendations of the BBC Tru

82、st. Nor can we claim that any shifts in the n</p><p>　　Following the 2007 research – which suggested a number of shortcomings in the BBC’s coverage of post-devolution politics – the BBC management suggested

83、a wide range of structural changes to its training and editorial policy, with the full management response including an action plan published in July 2008.6 While there were many different recommendations about changing

84、the internal structures that shape BBC news gathering, we focus on four specific guidelines in order to empirically explore whet</p><p>　　Second, policy differences between nations should be more clearly exp

85、lained. In the BBC management’s own words, this ‘involves reflecting different perspectives from the nations on particular policy developments’. The UK-wide news network, in other words, should be communicated more accur