摘要：This paper is based on a study
of the extent to which differently written reports on conflicts influence reader
approval of military measures and how readers evaluate different texts. Several
texts were developed for the study that described various conflicts in different
ways. Three conflicts were chosen, and two texts were developed for each
conflict: one supported a confrontational policy (escalation-oriented), whilst
the other warned against the escalation of conflict (de-escalation-oriented).
The texts were presented to the participants of this study, who were then asked
to evaluate the texts and to evaluate the acceptability of various military
measures. By presenting different conflicts, the study attempted to evoke
different degrees of participant partiality and involvement. It was found that
differences among the conflicts had little influence on the evaluations of the
texts and the military measures. However, the texts themselves had a clear
influence: De-escalation-oriented texts were judged to be better than
escalation-oriented ones. Moreover, escalation-oriented texts produced a higher
degree of acceptance of military measures than did de-escalation-oriented texts.
These results illustrate the particular responsibility of journalistic reporting
on conflicts. The present paper argues that the standards accepted as guides for
behaviour are strongly affected by overall situations. This may explain why
behaviour in highly escalated conflicts may deviate strongly from behavioural
norms accepted in peacetime.
