回首2016年，作為最受關注的國際政治事件之一，南海仲裁案 吸引了全球媒體的廣泛關注。遠離事件中心的人們只能透過媒體報導 了解南海仲裁案的始末原委，因此媒體的態度傾向將深刻影響受眾的 看法。在此背景下，各國媒體在報導南海仲裁案的過程中，是否秉持 客觀公正的報導準則顯得尤為重要。基於此，本研究選擇中國大陸、 台灣、美國、英國以及新加坡等五個地區的七家媒體，分析其對南海 仲裁案的報導是否符合客觀公正的報導原則。以框架理論為基礎、運 用内容分析的方法，本研究得到如下結論：第一，七家媒體對南海仲 裁案的關注程度都很高，其中《聯合早報》報導數量最多、《人民曰 報》次之。第二，《人民日報》和《紐約時報》的評論數量最多，都 試圖用舆論引導的方式左右受眾對南海仲裁案的態度。第三，《人民 曰報》、《南方都市報》和《中國時報》以引用中國官方和媒體消息 為主，《紐約時報》、BBC和《自由時報》則以引用西方媒體消息或 自行採訪非中方人士為主，而《聯合早報》基本上做到了平衡各方消 息來源。第四，《人民曰報》、《南方都市報》和《中國時報》的報 導對中國持正面態度，《紐約時報》、BBC和《自由時報》的報導對 中國的負面態度非常明顯，相較之下，《聯合早報》在報導中更加恪 守客觀中立的原則，觀點也更具建設性。

Looking back to 2016, the South China Sea Ruling was one of the most important and influential events around the world. People who live away from the area of South China Sea can only receive the relevant information from mass media. Thus, whether media did the reports with the objective attitude was very important. This research aims to analyze whether those reports, related to the South China Sea ruling, from People’s Daily, Southern Metropolis Daily, China Times, Free Times, The New York Times, BBC and United Morning Post accorded with objective and impartial reporting principles. Using the way of content analysis, this paper takes such conclusions as follow: 1. All of the media had payed high attention to the South China Ruling. And United Morning Post had made the largest number of reports about this event. Meanwhile, the news reports’ number of People’s Daily was following United Morning Post. 2. People’s Daily and The New York Times interned to publish the news comments, trying to use their own opinion to impact audiences’ attitude towards the South China Sea Ruling. 3. People’s Daily, Southern Metropolis Daily and China Times interned to cite the Chinese official and media news. While The New York Times, BBC and Free times were mainly referred to the western media news or interviewed non-Chinese people. Different from these media, United Morning Post basically achieved the balance of the distinctive news sources. 4. It was very significant that The New York Times, BBC and Free times took negative attitude towards China. While People’s Daily, Southern Metropolis Daily, and China Times supported the Chinese government confirmedly. On the contrary, United Morning Post merely abided by the principle of objectivity and neutrality. It’s view towards this event was also more constructive.