框架、情感与归责:焦点事件在政治话语中的意义建构
|
摘要
研究灾难事故型焦点事件在政治话语中的意义建构,对于理解政府危机管控与灾后政策变革具有重要价值。本研究借助双层分析模型,运用定量内容分析法,分析四个不同来源、量级的焦点事件在政府话语系统中的框架选择、情感修辞与归责逻辑。研究发现:首先,"抗灾救援"框架统帅着此类焦点事件的政府话语体系;与刻画"严重损失"的自然灾害不同,人为事故涉及更多的责任和道德框架,因而有丰富的情感策略运用,进而塑造了负责任、有情感的政府形象。主题框架在人为事故中得以大量运用,这与"社会整体性问题"的归因逻辑相匹配,带来"集体问责"的责任分配特征。其次,焦点事件的量级更多地与政府的情感反应联系在一起,即聚焦度越大,情感反应越强烈。最后,事件的量级与追责的强度和范围相联系,强聚焦度的事件更可能导致广泛的政策改变。
An impressive body of research shows that, framing of focusing events that are called disasters or accidents in political discourse provides valuable understanding for government's crisis management and postdisaster policy transition. The objective of this paper is to illustrate and examine the difference between the political discourse of focusing events originated from different origin and focal power. Based on a bistratal theoretical framework, a quantitative content analysis method is adopted to analyze the governmental discourses regarding four cases. The results reveal that "disaster relief and rescue" dominates the post-disaster governmental discourse system. Unlike natural disasters that often are portrayed as "serious loss", humanly accidents involve more responsibility distribution and ethics discussion, with abundant usage of emotional strategies, contributing to promoting the images of responsible and emotional government. As to humanly accidents, thematic framework is widely used in political discourses, in line with attributing logic of the "overall social problems" and "collective responsibility" distribution. The results also suggest that the magnitude of focusing event is more closely re-lated to the emotional reactions of the government, that is, the greater the degree of focal power, the stronger the emotional responses of the government. The magnitude is also linked to the strength and scope of accountability tracing, indicating that a strongly focusing event is more likely to lead to a wide range of policy changes.Finally, the practical implications and limitations are discussed.
An impressive body of research shows that, framing of focusing events that are called disasters or accidents in political discourse provides valuable understanding for government's crisis management and postdisaster policy transition. The objective of this paper is to illustrate and examine the difference between the political discourse of focusing events originated from different origin and focal power. Based on a bistratal theoretical framework, a quantitative content analysis method is adopted to analyze the governmental discourses regarding four cases. The results reveal that "disaster relief and rescue" dominates the post-disaster governmental discourse system. Unlike natural disasters that often are portrayed as "serious loss", humanly accidents involve more responsibility distribution and ethics discussion, with abundant usage of emotional strategies, contributing to promoting the images of responsible and emotional government. As to humanly accidents, thematic framework is widely used in political discourses, in line with attributing logic of the "overall social problems" and "collective responsibility" distribution. The results also suggest that the magnitude of focusing event is more closely re-lated to the emotional reactions of the government, that is, the greater the degree of focal power, the stronger the emotional responses of the government. The magnitude is also linked to the strength and scope of accountability tracing, indicating that a strongly focusing event is more likely to lead to a wide range of policy changes.Finally, the practical implications and limitations are discussed.
引文
[1]BIRKLAND T A.Natural Disasters as Focusing Events:Policy Communities and Political Response[J].International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,1996,14(2):221-243.
[2]BIRKLAND T A.Lessons of Disaster:Policy Change after Catastrophic Events[M].Washington,D.C.:Georgetown University Press,2006.
[3][美]拉雷·N·格斯顿,公共政策的制定---程序和原理[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2010.
[4]KINGDON J W.Agendas,Alternatives,and Public Policies[M].New York:Longman,2003.
[5]王雄军.焦点事件与政策间断---以《人民日报》的公共卫生政策议题变迁为例[J].社会科学,2009(1):45-50.
[6]刘伟伟.政策终结的多源流分析---基于收容遣送制度的经验研究[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(4):21-38.
[7]孙欢.间断平衡框架及在我国政策分析中的适用性:基于政策范式[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2016(6):31-42.
[8]赵静,薛澜.回应式议程设置模式---基于中国公共政策转型一类案例的分析[J].政治学研究,2017(3):42-51.
[9]刘一弘.危机管理的意义建构---基于“甲流”事件的政府话语分析[J].公共管理学报,2017(4):118-128.
[10]ROGGEBAND C,VLIEGENTHART R.Divergent Framing:The Public Debate on Migration in the Dutch Parliament and Media,1995-2004[J].West European Politics,2007,30(3):524-548.
[11]LENE A.Investigating Frame Strength:The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames[J].Political Communication,2011,28(2):207-226.
[12]JAMG S M,YONG J P,LEE H.Round-trip Agenda Setting:Tracking the Intermedia Process over Time in the Ice Bucket Challenge[J].Journalism:Theory,Practice&Criticism,2016,18(10):1292-1308.
[13]唐青叶.话语政治的分析框架及其意义[J].阿拉伯世界研究,2013(3):94-106.
[14]BOIN A,KUIPERS S,OVERDIJK W.Leadership in Times of Crisis:A Framework for Assessment[J].International Review of Public Administration,2013,18(1):79-91.
[15]LINDHOLM J.Threat or Opportunity?The Politicization of Focusing Events in the Parliamentary Arena[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,2016,25(2):79-90.
[16]BIRKLAND T A,CAMILLERI S,WARNEMENT M K.Idea Emergence Agenda Change and Learning[C].Seattle,WA:Meeting of the Western Political Science Association,2014.
[17]张洪忠.大众传播学的议程设置理论与框架理论关系探讨[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2001,22(10):88-91.
[18]刘丰,田春燕.用框架理论分析媒体导向---以“9·11”事件后美国主要媒体报道的分析为例[J].西南交通大学学报:社会科学版,2005,6(6):33-36.
[19]杜骏飞.框架效应[J].新闻与传播研究,2017,24(07):113-126.
[20]BIRKLAND T A,LAWRENCE R G.Media Framing and Policy Change after Columbine[J].American Behavioral Scientist,2009,52(10):1405-1425.
[21]CHO S H,GOWER K K.Framing Effect on the Public's Response to Crisis:Human Interest Frame and Crisis Type Influencing Responsibility and Blame[J].Public Relations Review,2006,32(4):420-422.
[22]LIU B.An Analysis of US Government and Media Disaster Frames[J].Journal of Communication Management,2009,13(3):268-283.
[23]BOIN A,MCCONNELL A,T'HART P.Governing after Crisis:The Politics of Investigation,Accountability and Learning[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[24]ROCHEFORT D,COBB R W.Problem Definition:An E-merging Perspective[M]//ROCHEFORT D,COBB R W.The Politics of Problem Definition.Shaping the Policy Agenda,Lawrence:University Press of Kansas,1994.
[25]BRANDSTROM A,KULPERS S,DALEUS P.The Politics of Tsunami Responses:Comparing Patterns of Blame Management in Scandinavia[M]//BOIN A,HART P,MCCONNELLA.Governing after Crisis:The Politics of Investigation,Accountability and Learning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[26]高恩新.特大生产安全事故的归因与行政问责--基于65份调查报告的分析[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(4):58-70.
[27]何志武,何志武,朱秀凌.“恶政府”?“弱拆迁户”?---拆迁冲突议题的媒介建构[J].新闻大学,2014(1):76-83.
[28]黄荣贵,郑雯,桂勇.多渠道强干预、框架与抗争结果---对40个拆迁抗争案例的模糊集定性比较分析[J].社会学研究,2015(5):90-114.
[29]徐彪.公共危机事件后政府信任受损及修复机理---基于归因理论的分析和情景实验[J].公共管理学报,2014(2):27-38.
[30]BRADER T.The Political Brain:The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen[J].Review of Policy Research,2008,25(4):623-627.
[31]IANNARINO N T,VEIL S R,COTTON A J.Bringing Home the Crisis:How US Evening News Framed the 2011 Japan Nuclear Crisis[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,2015,23(3):169-181.
[32]JONES B D,BAUMGARTNER F R.The Politics of Attention:How Government Prioritizes Problems[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2005.
[33]SOROKA S N.Negativity in Democratic Politics:Causes and Consequences[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2014.
[34]PANTTI M K,WAHL-JORGENSEN K."Not an Act of God":Anger and Citizenship in Press Coverage of British Man-made Disasters[J].Media,Culture&Society,2011,33(1):105-122.
[35]HUTCHISON E.Trauma and the Politics of Emotions:Constituting Identity,Security and Community after the Bali Bombing[J].International Relations,2010,24(1):65-86.
[36]乔同舟.被政治化的情感:政治传播中的情感话语[J].理论与现代化,2016(6):84-89.
[37]黄旦,钱进.控制与管理:从“抗灾动员”、“议程设置”到“危机传播”---对我国传媒突发性事件报道历史的简略考察[J].当代传播,2010(6):42-45.
[38]夏少琼.归因、归责与灾难---基于雾霾与地震的比较分析[J].广州大学学报:社会科学版,2016(2):19-27.
[39]WEINER B.Reflections on the History of Attribution Theory and Research:People,Personalities,Publications,Problems[J].Social Psychology,2008,39(3):151-156.
[40]范如国.“全球风险社会”治理:复杂性范式与中国参与[J].中国社会科学,2017(2):65-83.
[41]刘铁民,张程林.从问责调查到问题调查---基于系统论和系统安全理论的思考与建议[J].中国安全生产科学技术,2016,12(9):5-13.
[42]MAESTAS C D,ATKESON L R,CROOM T,BRYANT L A.Shifting the Blame:Federalism,Media,and Public Assignment of Blame Following Hurricane Katrina[J].Publius,2008,38(4):609-632.
[43]徐彪,陆湾湾,刘晓蓉,张浩.公共危机事件后公众对政府责任感知的形成机制研究[J].公共行政评论,2016,9(06):144-163.
[44]高恩新.特大生产安全事故行政问责“分水岭”效应:基于问责立方的分析[J].南京社会科学,2016(3):84-92.
[45]STONE D.Policy Paradox--The Art of Political Decision Making[M].New York:W.W.Norton&Compa,2002.
[46]黄萃,任,张剑.政策文献量化研究:公共政策研究的新方向[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(2):129-137.
[47]秦小建,陈明辉.论行政法上的批示[J].政治与法律,2013(10):75-82.
[48]SEMETKO H A,VALKENBURG P M.Framing European Politics:A Content Analysis of Press and Television News[J].Journal of Communication,2000,50(2):93-109.
[49]闫岩.新世纪以来我国特大事故的媒体框架构建研究[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2017,39(3):32-40.
[50]柳旭东,窦俊娥.中国国家电视媒体食品安全议题报道的框架研究---基于对中央电视台《新闻联播》十年报道的实证分析[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2015,37(1):55-60.
[51]BLEIKER R,HUTCHISON E.Fear no More:Emotions and World Politics[J].Review of International Studies,2008,34:115-135.
[52]GROSS K.Framing Persuasive Appeals:Episodic and Thematic Framing,Emotional Response,and Policy Opinion[J].Political Psychology,2008,29(2):169-192.
[53]KUHNE R,SCHEMER C.The Emotional Effects of News Frames on Information Processing and Opinion Formation[J].Communication Research,2015,42(3):387-407.
[54]聂静虹.论政治传播中的议题设置、启动效果和框架效果[J].政治学研究,2012(5):111-123.
[55]马奔,程海漫.危机学习的困境:基于特别重大事故调查报告的分析[J].公共行政评论,2017,10(2):118-139.
[56]王庆.媒体归因归责策略与被“雾化”的雾霾风险---基于对人民网雾霾报道的内容分析[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2014,36(12):37-42.
[57]马得勇.政治传播中的框架效应---国外研究现状及其对中国的启示[J].政治学研究,2016(4):58-70.
(1)本文只考察灾难事故型焦点事件,而群体性事件、食药品安全事件(如“长春长生假疫苗事件”)、社会舆论事件(如“魏则西-百度医疗竞价排名事件”、“权健涉嫌传销和非法行医事件”)等,未进入本研究视野,所得结论不宜推广至此。
(1)也译作“构框理论”或“框架建构理论”。
(1)(1)自然灾害。主要包括水旱灾害、气象灾害、地震灾害、地质灾害、海洋灾害、生物灾害和森林草原火灾等。(2)事故灾难。主要包括工矿商贸等企业的各类安全事故、交通运输事故、公共设施和设备事故、环境污染和生态破坏事件等。(3)公共卫生事件。主要包括传染病疫情、群体性不明原因疾病、食品安全和职业危害、动物疫情,以及其他严重影响公众健康和生命安全的事件。(4)社会安全事件。主要包括恐怖袭击事件、经济安全事件和涉外突发事件等。
(1)首属框架(或主导框架)与次级框架是区分不同框架在政治话语中重要性的一对范畴。首属框架是在某一语篇中占据主导地位的框架,次级框架是除首属框架外,占据次级地位的框架。首属框架和次级框架可能具有某种依存性,比如“归因与追责”常作为首属框架与作为次级框架的“情感道德”共同出现在人为事故类焦点事件的话语分析中。但很多时候两者并无必然联系。
(1)参见《四川省“8·8”九寨沟地震抗震救灾及“6·24”茂县特大山体滑坡灾害抢险救灾表彰大会上省委书记讲话》(http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/10797/2017/9/28/10434892.shtml)。
(1)根据问责相关政策,党政纪处分、辞职、停职、责令辞职以及撤职等均属于行政问责;政治问责是针对领导者,因此地(市、厅)级及以上官员被问责才视为政治问责。
[2]BIRKLAND T A.Lessons of Disaster:Policy Change after Catastrophic Events[M].Washington,D.C.:Georgetown University Press,2006.
[3][美]拉雷·N·格斯顿,公共政策的制定---程序和原理[M].重庆:重庆出版社,2010.
[4]KINGDON J W.Agendas,Alternatives,and Public Policies[M].New York:Longman,2003.
[5]王雄军.焦点事件与政策间断---以《人民日报》的公共卫生政策议题变迁为例[J].社会科学,2009(1):45-50.
[6]刘伟伟.政策终结的多源流分析---基于收容遣送制度的经验研究[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(4):21-38.
[7]孙欢.间断平衡框架及在我国政策分析中的适用性:基于政策范式[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2016(6):31-42.
[8]赵静,薛澜.回应式议程设置模式---基于中国公共政策转型一类案例的分析[J].政治学研究,2017(3):42-51.
[9]刘一弘.危机管理的意义建构---基于“甲流”事件的政府话语分析[J].公共管理学报,2017(4):118-128.
[10]ROGGEBAND C,VLIEGENTHART R.Divergent Framing:The Public Debate on Migration in the Dutch Parliament and Media,1995-2004[J].West European Politics,2007,30(3):524-548.
[11]LENE A.Investigating Frame Strength:The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames[J].Political Communication,2011,28(2):207-226.
[12]JAMG S M,YONG J P,LEE H.Round-trip Agenda Setting:Tracking the Intermedia Process over Time in the Ice Bucket Challenge[J].Journalism:Theory,Practice&Criticism,2016,18(10):1292-1308.
[13]唐青叶.话语政治的分析框架及其意义[J].阿拉伯世界研究,2013(3):94-106.
[14]BOIN A,KUIPERS S,OVERDIJK W.Leadership in Times of Crisis:A Framework for Assessment[J].International Review of Public Administration,2013,18(1):79-91.
[15]LINDHOLM J.Threat or Opportunity?The Politicization of Focusing Events in the Parliamentary Arena[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,2016,25(2):79-90.
[16]BIRKLAND T A,CAMILLERI S,WARNEMENT M K.Idea Emergence Agenda Change and Learning[C].Seattle,WA:Meeting of the Western Political Science Association,2014.
[17]张洪忠.大众传播学的议程设置理论与框架理论关系探讨[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2001,22(10):88-91.
[18]刘丰,田春燕.用框架理论分析媒体导向---以“9·11”事件后美国主要媒体报道的分析为例[J].西南交通大学学报:社会科学版,2005,6(6):33-36.
[19]杜骏飞.框架效应[J].新闻与传播研究,2017,24(07):113-126.
[20]BIRKLAND T A,LAWRENCE R G.Media Framing and Policy Change after Columbine[J].American Behavioral Scientist,2009,52(10):1405-1425.
[21]CHO S H,GOWER K K.Framing Effect on the Public's Response to Crisis:Human Interest Frame and Crisis Type Influencing Responsibility and Blame[J].Public Relations Review,2006,32(4):420-422.
[22]LIU B.An Analysis of US Government and Media Disaster Frames[J].Journal of Communication Management,2009,13(3):268-283.
[23]BOIN A,MCCONNELL A,T'HART P.Governing after Crisis:The Politics of Investigation,Accountability and Learning[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[24]ROCHEFORT D,COBB R W.Problem Definition:An E-merging Perspective[M]//ROCHEFORT D,COBB R W.The Politics of Problem Definition.Shaping the Policy Agenda,Lawrence:University Press of Kansas,1994.
[25]BRANDSTROM A,KULPERS S,DALEUS P.The Politics of Tsunami Responses:Comparing Patterns of Blame Management in Scandinavia[M]//BOIN A,HART P,MCCONNELLA.Governing after Crisis:The Politics of Investigation,Accountability and Learning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[26]高恩新.特大生产安全事故的归因与行政问责--基于65份调查报告的分析[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(4):58-70.
[27]何志武,何志武,朱秀凌.“恶政府”?“弱拆迁户”?---拆迁冲突议题的媒介建构[J].新闻大学,2014(1):76-83.
[28]黄荣贵,郑雯,桂勇.多渠道强干预、框架与抗争结果---对40个拆迁抗争案例的模糊集定性比较分析[J].社会学研究,2015(5):90-114.
[29]徐彪.公共危机事件后政府信任受损及修复机理---基于归因理论的分析和情景实验[J].公共管理学报,2014(2):27-38.
[30]BRADER T.The Political Brain:The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen[J].Review of Policy Research,2008,25(4):623-627.
[31]IANNARINO N T,VEIL S R,COTTON A J.Bringing Home the Crisis:How US Evening News Framed the 2011 Japan Nuclear Crisis[J].Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,2015,23(3):169-181.
[32]JONES B D,BAUMGARTNER F R.The Politics of Attention:How Government Prioritizes Problems[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2005.
[33]SOROKA S N.Negativity in Democratic Politics:Causes and Consequences[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2014.
[34]PANTTI M K,WAHL-JORGENSEN K."Not an Act of God":Anger and Citizenship in Press Coverage of British Man-made Disasters[J].Media,Culture&Society,2011,33(1):105-122.
[35]HUTCHISON E.Trauma and the Politics of Emotions:Constituting Identity,Security and Community after the Bali Bombing[J].International Relations,2010,24(1):65-86.
[36]乔同舟.被政治化的情感:政治传播中的情感话语[J].理论与现代化,2016(6):84-89.
[37]黄旦,钱进.控制与管理:从“抗灾动员”、“议程设置”到“危机传播”---对我国传媒突发性事件报道历史的简略考察[J].当代传播,2010(6):42-45.
[38]夏少琼.归因、归责与灾难---基于雾霾与地震的比较分析[J].广州大学学报:社会科学版,2016(2):19-27.
[39]WEINER B.Reflections on the History of Attribution Theory and Research:People,Personalities,Publications,Problems[J].Social Psychology,2008,39(3):151-156.
[40]范如国.“全球风险社会”治理:复杂性范式与中国参与[J].中国社会科学,2017(2):65-83.
[41]刘铁民,张程林.从问责调查到问题调查---基于系统论和系统安全理论的思考与建议[J].中国安全生产科学技术,2016,12(9):5-13.
[42]MAESTAS C D,ATKESON L R,CROOM T,BRYANT L A.Shifting the Blame:Federalism,Media,and Public Assignment of Blame Following Hurricane Katrina[J].Publius,2008,38(4):609-632.
[43]徐彪,陆湾湾,刘晓蓉,张浩.公共危机事件后公众对政府责任感知的形成机制研究[J].公共行政评论,2016,9(06):144-163.
[44]高恩新.特大生产安全事故行政问责“分水岭”效应:基于问责立方的分析[J].南京社会科学,2016(3):84-92.
[45]STONE D.Policy Paradox--The Art of Political Decision Making[M].New York:W.W.Norton&Compa,2002.
[46]黄萃,任,张剑.政策文献量化研究:公共政策研究的新方向[J].公共管理学报,2015,12(2):129-137.
[47]秦小建,陈明辉.论行政法上的批示[J].政治与法律,2013(10):75-82.
[48]SEMETKO H A,VALKENBURG P M.Framing European Politics:A Content Analysis of Press and Television News[J].Journal of Communication,2000,50(2):93-109.
[49]闫岩.新世纪以来我国特大事故的媒体框架构建研究[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2017,39(3):32-40.
[50]柳旭东,窦俊娥.中国国家电视媒体食品安全议题报道的框架研究---基于对中央电视台《新闻联播》十年报道的实证分析[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2015,37(1):55-60.
[51]BLEIKER R,HUTCHISON E.Fear no More:Emotions and World Politics[J].Review of International Studies,2008,34:115-135.
[52]GROSS K.Framing Persuasive Appeals:Episodic and Thematic Framing,Emotional Response,and Policy Opinion[J].Political Psychology,2008,29(2):169-192.
[53]KUHNE R,SCHEMER C.The Emotional Effects of News Frames on Information Processing and Opinion Formation[J].Communication Research,2015,42(3):387-407.
[54]聂静虹.论政治传播中的议题设置、启动效果和框架效果[J].政治学研究,2012(5):111-123.
[55]马奔,程海漫.危机学习的困境:基于特别重大事故调查报告的分析[J].公共行政评论,2017,10(2):118-139.
[56]王庆.媒体归因归责策略与被“雾化”的雾霾风险---基于对人民网雾霾报道的内容分析[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2014,36(12):37-42.
[57]马得勇.政治传播中的框架效应---国外研究现状及其对中国的启示[J].政治学研究,2016(4):58-70.
(1)本文只考察灾难事故型焦点事件,而群体性事件、食药品安全事件(如“长春长生假疫苗事件”)、社会舆论事件(如“魏则西-百度医疗竞价排名事件”、“权健涉嫌传销和非法行医事件”)等,未进入本研究视野,所得结论不宜推广至此。
(1)也译作“构框理论”或“框架建构理论”。
(1)(1)自然灾害。主要包括水旱灾害、气象灾害、地震灾害、地质灾害、海洋灾害、生物灾害和森林草原火灾等。(2)事故灾难。主要包括工矿商贸等企业的各类安全事故、交通运输事故、公共设施和设备事故、环境污染和生态破坏事件等。(3)公共卫生事件。主要包括传染病疫情、群体性不明原因疾病、食品安全和职业危害、动物疫情,以及其他严重影响公众健康和生命安全的事件。(4)社会安全事件。主要包括恐怖袭击事件、经济安全事件和涉外突发事件等。
(1)首属框架(或主导框架)与次级框架是区分不同框架在政治话语中重要性的一对范畴。首属框架是在某一语篇中占据主导地位的框架,次级框架是除首属框架外,占据次级地位的框架。首属框架和次级框架可能具有某种依存性,比如“归因与追责”常作为首属框架与作为次级框架的“情感道德”共同出现在人为事故类焦点事件的话语分析中。但很多时候两者并无必然联系。
(1)参见《四川省“8·8”九寨沟地震抗震救灾及“6·24”茂县特大山体滑坡灾害抢险救灾表彰大会上省委书记讲话》(http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/10797/2017/9/28/10434892.shtml)。
(1)根据问责相关政策,党政纪处分、辞职、停职、责令辞职以及撤职等均属于行政问责;政治问责是针对领导者,因此地(市、厅)级及以上官员被问责才视为政治问责。