Covid-19疫情下的風險溝通與公共問責：三級警戒期間我國政府每日防疫記者會記者提問之主題分析

Risk Communication and Public Accountability during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Thematic Analysis of Journalists’Questions at the CECC’s Daily News briefings during the Period of Level 3 Alert

研究目標：觀察三級警戒期間，媒體作為風險溝通第一線參與者，是否、如何發揮制衡政府權力、確保公共問責的角色與功能。研究設計：以我國三級警戒期間政府防疫記者會逐字稿為研究範圍，以隔日取樣方式取得37場記者會樣本，針對其中記者提問部分，由研究者閱讀資料進行分類、並持續調整以達到編碼時最大之簡便和一致性，最終形成疫情監控、醫療量能、全民防疫、疫苗取得、疫苗施打、與其他等六大主題標籤進行人工標記。研究發現：本研究共對1,432則提問進行1,550次主題標籤標記，其中疫情監控被標記466次、醫療量能109次、全民防疫257次、疫苗取得224次、疫苗施打453次、其他41次。若區分三級前、中、後期，疫情監控與醫療量能隨著時間逐步下降，全民防疫和疫苗取得的分布相對平均，疫苗施打則集中於三級中期與後期。若進一步對各標籤進行第二層區分，被標記次數前5名依序為全民防疫下的行為指引（137次），疫苗施打下的疫苗施打順序／類別（137次），以及疫情監控下的確診案例追蹤（96次）、重症死亡資訊（77次）、與社區監測（74次）。結論：本研究歸納出挑戰政府違法、關注政府執法及要求政府釐清管制規則等記者提問發揮法律面公共問責功能的三個可能層次。本研究進而圍繞風險溝通如何幫助適當節制政府權力行使，分別從媒體與法律專業社群的低度互動、法律專業社群風險溝通角色的反思、以及風險溝通中消失的公衛法制整備議題等三個視角，對我國風險溝通的現況提出反思。

Research Objective: To observe whether and how the media, as front-line participants in risk communication, play a role in balancing government power and ensuring public accountability during the Level 3 Alert period. Research Design: This study uses as data the verbatim transcripts of the CECC’s Daily News briefings during the Level 3 Alert period in Taiwan. A total sample of 37 press conference transcripts was obtained using an every-other-day sampling method. The research team manually analyzes and categorizes the data, as well as continuously readjusts the result to achieve maximum simplicity and consistency in categorization. Ultimately, six major theme labels－epidemic monitoring, medical capacity, public collaboration, vaccine acquisition, vaccine administration, and others－were formulated, based on which the journalists’questions were manually tagged. Research Findings: A total of 1,432 questions were tagged with 1,550 theme labels. Epidemic monitoring was tagged 466 times, medical capacity 109 times, public collaboration 257 times, vaccine acquisition 224 times, vaccine administration 453 times, and others 41 times. When dividing the Level 3 Alert period into early, middle, and late stages, epidemic monitoring and medical capacity gradually decreased over time, the distribution of public collaboration and vaccine acquisition was relatively even, while vaccine administration was concentrated in the middle and late stages. Further differentiation within each label revealed that the top five most frequently tagged items were behavioral guidelines under public collaboration (137 times), vaccine administration order/category under vaccine administration (137 times), and confirmed case tracking (96 times), severe and death cases information (77 times), and community monitoring (74 times) under epidemic monitoring. Conclusion: This study identifies three potential functions of journalists’questions in exercising public accountability: challenging government illegality, focusing on government law enforcement, and demanding clarification of regulatory rules. The study further examines the current status of risk communication in Taiwan as a means to restrain government power from the following three perspectives, including: 1) the low interaction between the media and the legal communities, 2) the role of risk communication in legal communities, and 3) the disappearing issue of public health legal preparedness in risk communication.