[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--新聞媒體外文翻譯--大眾傳媒中還存在危機(jī)嗎（如果曾經(jīng)存在危機(jī)）？以英國(guó)為例（原文）

1、Journalism1 –16 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1464884915576731 jou.sagepub.comIs there still a ‘crisis in public communication’ (if there ever

2、was one)? The UK experienceIvor Gaber University of Sussex, UKAbstract This article takes a considered look at the debates surrounding the notion of ‘the crisis in political communications’ as it applies, in particular,

3、 to the United Kingdom. The article begins by seeking to make the Habermasian notion of the public sphere relevant to contemporary political communications in the United Kingdom. It then goes on to detail the evolutio

4、n of the argument that there is a crisis, by tracing it, mainly but not exclusively, through the works of Jay Blumler and his collaborators. It places these arguments within the context of the changes in the relations

5、between politicians and the media as set out by both scholars and through the author’s reflections on his own professional practice. The article suggests that despite what some have described as a deterioration in the

6、 political communications system, the dramatic changes that have been, and are, taking place in the increasingly digital public sphere, an argument can be sustained that we are moving into a period when, because the pu

7、blic (or its online component) have greater access to political information and debate, the crisis, if it ever existed in the first place, is passing and we are now moving towards an enhanced and healthier digital publ

8、ic sphere.Keywords Digital revolution, political communications, politicians and media, public sphere, social media, spin and democratic debateIntroduction: The public sphere reconsideredAny discussion about a ‘crisis’

9、in political or public communications must, either implic- itly or explicitly, take as a starting point Jürgen Habermas’ (1989) notion of the public Corresponding author: Ivor Gaber, Department of Media and Film, Un

10、iversity of Sussex, Silverstone Room 204, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK. Email: ivor.gaber@sussex.ac.uk576731 JOU0010.1177/1464884915576731JournalismGaber research-article2015Articleat China Jiliang University on May 28, 2016 j

11、ou.sagepub.com Downloaded from Gaber 3If the answer is yes, then a further question is begged – namely, is the crisis more or less fixed in nature or is it dynamic and, in normative terms, can the direction of travel b

12、e seen as positive or negative? Or was there never a crisis in the first place? There are a number of electronic straws in the wind suggestive of the possibility that contemporary political communications are in the pr

13、ocess of changing, or appearing to change, what Gans (2010) has termed the ‘democratic conversation’, and that this trans- formation is not necessarily for the worse.Blumler’s developing ‘crisis in public communication’

14、In considering the health of the political public sphere, I am focussing on the central relationship within that sphere, namely, that between journalists and politicians. One of the key texts in this area is Blumler an

15、d Gurevitch (1995) who were among the pioneers of a systemic approach to the study of political communications and were among the first to identify the ‘Crisis of Public Communication’, based on their almost 30 years o

16、f observing election coverage at the BBC between 1966 and 1992. When Blumler first began researching election coverage in the United Kingdom, he did not perceive it to be in ‘crisis’. In one of his first studies Bluml

17、er and McQuail (1968) concluded that the political communications system in the United Kingdom, as they observed it during the 1964 election in the United Kingdom, was functioning well, giving the maximum num- ber of c

18、itizens the chance to be exposed to the views of the main political parties (p. 286). And when Blumler and Gurevitch looked at political communications in the elections of 1983 in the United Kingdom and 1984 in the Uni

19、ted States (Semetko et al., 1991), they compared Britain favourably, noting that in the UK election, coverage was less game- orientated, more substantive, gave politicians more scope to set the campaign agenda, less pr

20、ofessionalised and that British journalists’ attitude to politicians was more ‘sacer- dotal’ than ‘disdainful’ – their two principle descriptors. They attributed these positive attributes largely to the existence of a s

21、izeable public service broadcasting sector in the United Kingdom which was imbued with what they described as a ‘civic mission’ (Semetko et al. 1991). However, in the light of their later observations at the BBC, they

22、subsequently revised their verdict on the British system, charting a declining public service broadcasting ethos which they held as being largely responsible for what they were now calling a ‘crisis’ in public communi

23、cation. They observed that journalists (not just in the BBC) were becom- ing ever more ‘disdainful’ of politicians in their election coverage. They suggested that journalists viewed politicians and parties through an in

24、creasingly cynical lens and saw election coverage more and more in terms of a contest – not between the politicians but between the politicians and the media. In this contest, the journalists first sought to decode ho

25、w the politicians were attempting to gain control of the daily election news agenda and then were seeking to devise strategies as to how to nullify such manoeuvres (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995: 104). This approach they

26、 contrasted with what they had described earlier as a more ‘sacerdotal’ approach to election coverage – the notion that journalists, particularly public service broadcasters, assumed that they had an obligation to pro