论文部分内容阅读
文章对比了史学和新闻学对汪康年的研究,认为汪康年是一位被新闻史误读的报人。史学研究认为,汪康年是一名维新派人士,汪梁之争是学术之争、管理权之争,汪康年是张之洞的代理人的说法不正确;新闻史研究认为,汪康年是洋务派人士,汪梁之争是维新派和洋务派之争,汪康年是张之洞的代理人。文章重点探讨了汪康年被误读的的深层次原因:即研究范式、方法论、具体研究方法、治学态度等因素共同导致了汪康年的被误读。学科的差异性和评价主体的差异性并不能成为误读汪康年的借口,新闻史研究要遵守史学研究的规范,运用史学研究的方法,评价尽可能地做到客观、公正。
The article compares the study of Wang Kang-nian by historiography and journalism, and regards Wang Kang-nian as a reporter who is misunderstood by the history of news. According to historical studies, Wang Kangnian is a reformed person. Wang Liang’s argument is an academic dispute and a dispute over the right of management. Wang Kangnian is not an accurate account of Zhang Zhidong’s attorney. According to the study of news history, Wang Kangnian is a member of the Westernization School, The dispute between Wang Liang and Liang is a dispute between the reformists and the Westernists. Wang Kangnian is the agent of Zhang Zhidong. This article focuses on Wang Kangnian’s misunderstanding of the deep-seated reasons: the research paradigm, methodology, specific research methods, attitude and other factors together led to Wang Kangnian was misread. Disciplinary differences and the main difference between the evaluation and can not become an excuse for Wang Kangnian misunderstanding, history of news research to comply with the norms of historical research, the use of historical research methods, evaluation as objective and fair as possible.