本文以2001、2008與2012三個年度的公視集團議題為對象，以 分析在這些議題發生的期間，報社評論者、學院知識份子、社會大眾 等類型成員在國内報紙發表的相關論述。進一步而言，本文是以《聯 合報》、《中國時報》、《自由時報》、《蘋果曰報》等综合性報紙 為主要分析對象，並且針對其中136則公視相關論述進行整體描繪與 分析。 本文有三項發現。第一，以公視集團議題的論述者而言，是以報 社評論者（37%)與學院知識份子（32%)為主，一般大眾的比例則 較少（10%)。以歷時性角度來說，一般大眾的相關論述有逐漸增多 的趨勢。 第二，以公視議題的論述方向而言，學知是最支持公視集團的發 展，報社的評論者則多是批評政治力干預公視以及進行分析。就此而 言，本文認為各報主要是站在「守門人」立場來關注公視議題，卻對 公視發展採取較保守的態度。 第三，本文發現公視議題的「參與公共性」與「論述公共性」呈 現了相反的發展趨勢，這是指公視論述的參與者類型雖然漸趨多元， 但相關論述的品質卻未與之提升。 综上所述，我們發現隨落實公視理念的政治機會變小，公視議題 的政策討論空間確實越來越限縮。因此，我們主張較具有論述能力的 社會成員必須吸引大眾關注公視的政策議題，以累積公民社會「下而 上」的改革能量。

This paper aims to analyze issues about Taiwan Public Television in 2001, 2008, and 2012. In addition, this article is aimed at newspaper commentators, academic intellectuals, professionals and the general public in the newspaper on the discussion. We make a study of the newspapers such as “United Daily News”, “China Times”, “Liberty Times” and “Apple Daily”, and analyze 136 related public opinions. This article has three findings. First, newspaper commentators(37%) and academic intellectuals(32%)are the main contributors to the discussion about public television(PTV), while general public is the less(10%). In terms of diachronic perspective, there is a growing trend in the general public's discourse. Second, In terms of the direction of discussion, academic intellectuals always express support for PTV. On the other hand, newspaper commentators always criticize that political power Intervenes in PTV operation. In this regard, we think that newspaper commentators often take the position of gatekeepers to supervise the relationship between political powers and PTV, but take a more conservative attitude to the development of PTV. Third, this paper finds that” publicity of participation” and “publicity of discourse” have the opposite trend of development. This means that although the types of participants in the PTV discussion are more and more diverse, the quality of the related discourse has not been improved. To sum up, we find that as the "political opportunity" for implementing the PTV becomes smaller, the related policy discussion space is becoming more and more restricted. Therefore, we argue that more capable members must draw public attention to public policy issues about PTV in order to accumulate civil society "bottom up" reform forces.