| Summary: | 碩士 === 銘傳大學 === 傳播管理研究所碩士在職專班 === 96 === The controversy between freedom of press and right to silence has continued for many years. Media reporters argue that to protect the source of information, they should enjoy the right to silence. Government officials and the parties of news events, however, claim from the perspectives of human rights and national security that freedom of press might infringe people’s privacy and rights, so journalists should disclose the sources of information. Even in the judiciary field, prosecutors and judges constantly demand that news media provide sources of information so the truth can be discovered.
This research aims to identifying the cognitional difference between journalists and prosecutors regarding the functions of news and right to silence and seeking the norm that are acceptable to and can be followed by both sides through theoretical and practical explorations. The objectives of this research are listed below:
1. To understand the cognitional difference between journalists and prosecutors regarding the functions of news.
2. To understand the cognitional difference between journalists and prosecutors regarding right to silence.
3. To understand the factors leading to the cognitional difference between journalists and prosecutors regarding the functions of news and right to silence
4. To explore the difference of attitudes in citing sources of information between journalists and prosecutors for future reference by journalists and prosecutors.
A questionnaire survey was conducted on 178 journalists in Taipei and 212 prosecutors of Shihlin District Prosecutors Office and Banciao District Prosecutors Office from Dec.26th, 2007 to Jan. 10th, 2008 with 146 valid copies (response rate 82.02%) from journalists and 172 from prosecutors (response rate 81.13%).
The results:
1. A great difference of the cognition of the functions of news exists between journalists and prosecutors. Journalists have the highest cognition in their “obligation to protect the sources of news or information” while the prosecutors have the highest cognition in “freedom of press may infringe privacy” and “freedom of press may infringe people’s rights”.
2. Journalists and prosecutors have contrasting cognitions in the right to silence. Journalists have the highest cognition in “disclosing sources of information will damage their reputation and credibility and that of the media they work for”.
3. For functions of news, on the aspect of “conflict of rights”, notable cognitional differences exist among journalists due to the difference in “ages”, “natures of media” and “years in profession”.
4. For functions of news, on the aspect of “freedom first”, notable cognitional differences exist among prosecutors due to the difference in “ages”, “educational backgrounds” and “years in profession”.
5. For right to silence, notable cognitional differences exist between journalists and prosecutors due to “natures of media”, “categories of news reporting”, “educational backgrounds” and “years in profession”.
|
|---|
