要求媒體自律的聲音，從現代報刊出現以來，就未曾停歇。不 過，媒體責任與新聞自律在臺灣戒嚴時期有另一層的意義。在1950 年 代，即有一些文章提及媒體責任與新聞自律，但有一部分立基於反共 的前提，其中更有言需「暫時犧牲自由，爭取生存」者。1950 年代臺 灣新聞界所建構的責任說，隨著1960 年謝然之與胡傳厚將希伯特等 學者於1956 年提出的「社會責任論」引介至臺灣，有更具體的內容。 而國民黨內部及陽明山第2 次會談所提出，建立新聞自律體制的建 議，更扮演推波助瀾的功能。在此影響下，社會責任論成為戒嚴時期 傳播學界的顯學，但也帶有濃厚的「國家利益」至上的色彩。從理論 出發，曾虛白、李瞻等學者從社會責任論吸取養分，建構三民主義報 業藍圖。而國民黨則延續1950 年代反共至上的責任論，將社會新聞， 乃至於所有媒體報導與國家利益結合在一起，要求報刊雜誌負起國家 興亡的重責大任。夾帶國家利益至上的社會責任論在1980 年代面臨挑 戰，學界開始從更高的角度來看待社會新聞的發展，進而要求政府開 放新聞報導與言論自由尺度，期望報紙不要過分「自律」，而妨害臺灣 民主化的前進。

Since the emergence of the modern newspaper, the voice that claim for self-regulation of the media never relented. However, it has an another significance about the media of responsibility and the press self-regulation during the period of martial law in Taiwan. In the 1950s, some of the articles mentioned in the media responsibilities and the press self-regulation, but part of the premise of legislation based on the anti-communist. The responsibility doctrine that constructed by the Taiwan press in the 1950s, with “the social responsibility” that put forward by Siebert and other scholars in 1956, introducing to Taiwan by Hsieh ran zhi and Hu chuan hou in 1960 that had more specific content. And put forward the establishment of press self-regulation system within the KMT and the second Discussion of Yangmingshan, it's played more in fueling. “The social responsibility” became the famous subject of spread academia during the material law era, but also with the color of “the supreme of national benefits”. The supreme of national benefits responsibility was confronted with challenges in 1980s, the academics asked the government to open news coverage and freedom of expression scales, and expected the newspapers not excessive “selfdiscipline” that hindered the Taiwan's democratization forward.