ABSTRACT

In the last two decades, numerous scholars and professionals have argued that people need more assistance than provided by conventional reporting. Hopes have been placed on a new genre, most commonly known as explanatory reporting. This type of reporting provides context by answering “how” and “why” questions, going beyond conventional reporting’s focus on “who/what/when/where”, novelty and immediacy. Its proponents have argued that explanatory reporting makes it easier for audiences to understand an issue, develop well-informed opinions and attitudes, and arrive at accurate attributions of responsibility. Yet, whether this is truly the case has barely been investigated. This study addresses this gap in knowledge. The 46 qualitative interviews reported here suggest that explanatory reporting fulfils the hopes placed on this new genre. Interviewees viewing an explanatory report (1) understood the issue at hand better than those who watched conventional news instead and (2) reported more nuanced attributions of responsibility. Furthermore, contrary to most studies to date, explanatory reporting (3) elicited an emotional response, discrediting the notion that backgrounders are dull. Potential variations relating to (4) attitude change were inconclusive, perhaps because the topic of the videos used as conversation starters—organ donation—induced social desirability.

摘要

在过去的二十年里，许多学者和专业人士认为，人们需要比传统报道提供的更多的帮助。人们寄希望于一种新类型，最常见的解释性报道. 这种类型的报告通过回答“如何”和“为什么”的问题来提供背景，超越了传统报告对“谁/什么/何时/何地”、新颖性和即时性的关注。它的支持者认为，解释性报道使听众更容易理解一个问题，形成明智的意见和态度，并准确地归因于责任。然而，这是否真的如此，几乎没有被调查过。本研究解决了这一知识差距。这里报道的 46 次定性访谈表明，解释性报道满足了人们对这一新类型的希望。查看解释性报告的受访者 (1) 比那些观看传统新闻的人更了解手头的问题，并且 (2) 报告了更细微的责任归因。此外，与迄今为止的大多数研究相反，解释性报告 (3) 引起了情绪反应，驳斥了背景资料乏味的观点。与 (4) 态度改变相关的潜在变化尚无定论，这可能是因为用作对话开场白的视频主题——器官捐赠——引起了社会期望。