Abstract
Undoubtedly, methodology in the field of jurisprudence is one of the topics of jurisprudential philosophy that is considered as a second-degree knowledge. On the other hand, the change in the scale of methodology is a change in the jurist's perspective from a subject-oriented approach to a system-oriented approach.
One of the damages of the common methodology of jurisprudence is the lack of precise recognition of new subjects and issues and how to adapt jurisprudential and legal evidence for understanding the legal ruling in that subject. In media jurisprudence, a subject-oriented approach and a methodological system-oriented approach should be considered to solve its jurisprudential issues from legal sources. The central claim of this article is that there are differences between the common jurisprudential methodology and specialized jurisprudential methods such as media jurisprudence, which affect the recognition of the subject and the inference of the ruling. To achieve this goal, the concept of variable discussion and the traditional and additional jurisprudential methodology are explained, and finally, the differences between emerging subjects and common jurisprudential subjects are discussed. This research has concluded, using a descriptive-analytical method and library information gathering tools, that there is a new framework for media jurisprudential methodology, so that, based on its evidence and conditions, if a jurist looks at it with general jurisprudential inference methods, he will discover, infer, and issue a specific ruling, and if he looks at it with specialized and additional jurisprudential methods, he will have other discoveries and inferences. In this research, the triple method of jurisprudential discovery in media jurisprudence is explained and proposed.