What do we expect from those stalwart people who report the news? A past generation of journalists prided itself on the image of the fearless objective reporter, whose slogan was, “Just the facts, Ma’am. ” All editorializing was left to the editorials pages. Then the so-called “investigative journalist” was born. They blurred the distinction between reporting and editorializing. Investigative journalism seems to see its job as a mission to expose wrongdoing and corruption in high places. Of course, on occasion these journalists do a good deed. And with the birth of the investigative journalist came the inevitable News Shows! They’ve blurred the distinction between news and entertainment, often seeming to cater to the public’s taste for scandal and gossip than for real news. Put them all together and they make up the Media.
我们对那些报道新闻的忠实的人有什么期望？上一代记者对这位无所畏惧的客观记者的形象感到自豪，他的口号是：“就事论事，夫人。”所有的社论都留给了社论版。于是，所谓的“调查记者”诞生了。他们模糊了报道和评论之间的区别。调查报导似乎认为自己的工作是揭露高层的不当行为和腐败。当然，这些记者偶尔也会做一些好事。随着调查记者的诞生，不可避免的新闻节目也应运而生！他们模糊了新闻和娱乐之间的区别，往往似乎迎合了公众对丑闻和八卦的口味，而不是真正的新闻。把他们放在一起，他们组成了媒体。
The media holds vast potential for education as well as the broadening of individual viewpoints. Conversely, it often has a frightening power to manipulate the minds of the masses. This last fact is demonstrated by millions who have become media dependent. Yes it’s true. Just as there are people who are alcohol-dependent.
媒体在教育以及扩大个人观点方面拥有巨大的潜力。相反，它往往有一种可怕的力量来操纵群众的思想。这最后一个事实已经被数百万变得依赖媒体的人证明了。是的，这是真的。正如有些人是依赖酒精的。
One main area that many people have allowed the media to shape their views on is race relations. Because of the TV images of places that few of the viewers have ever visited, and incidents that they didn’t actually witness and are not truly well informed about, personal decisions are made. Our fears and doubts about racial bias, rapists and their victims, world hunger or what have you, are aroused and fueled by a sensation-hungry media. It is also the media that either keeps us pumped up and excited about these issues or that lets our excitement dwindle and subside. But where does it all start? Where does the finished product come from? Who is behind deciding what we all get to actually see in the end?
许多人允许媒体塑造他们的观点的一个主要领域是种族关系。由于很少有观众去过的地方的电视画面，以及他们没有亲眼目睹的事件，以及他们没有真正了解的事件，个人的决定就做出了。我们对种族歧视的恐惧和怀疑强奸犯和他们的受害者，世界饥饿或者诸如此类的东西，被感官饥渴的媒体所唤醒和刺激。也是媒体让我们对这些问题保持兴奋和兴奋，或者让我们的兴奋减少和平息。但是这一切从何开始呢？成品来自哪里？谁在幕后决定我们最终能看到什么？
Just look at the effect the media has on most people’s political views. Elections are sometimes indirectly decided by what the media presents to the public. We often choose political leaders in campaigns conducted in large part in the news, whether it’s in the form of newspapers or television. It’s all the same. And the nastier the campaign, the more coverage it gets.
看看媒体对大多数人的政治观点的影响就知道了。选举有时是由媒体呈现给公众的内容间接决定的。我们经常在竞选活动中选择政治领导人，这些活动很大程度上是以新闻的形式进行的，不管是以报纸还是电视的形式。竞选活动越糟糕，报道就越多。
I have noticed that whenever the media focuses sharply on candidates for the presidency or especially for the Supreme Court, more often than not we learn more about their pasts than their current standing on health insurance, abortion, the death penalty or what have you. The media tries to sensationalize their youthful experiments with cocaine or their talks behind closed doors, like these are truly important errors. In today’s permissive and often pervasive society, it would be an odd thing indeed if a candidate appeared who didn’t have any fault, wouldn’t it? Anyway, for many viewers, and especially our younger generations, the faces that come up on the media screens are more real and more interesting than those of their coworkers, neighbors and schoolmates.
我注意到，每当媒体尖锐地关注总统候选人或特别是最高法院的候选人时，我们往往比他们目前在健康保险、堕胎、死刑或其他方面的情况更多地了解他们的过去。媒体试图耸人听闻地宣传他们年轻时的可卡因实验，或者他们闭门谈话，好像这些才是真正重要的错误。在今天这个宽容的社会里，如果一个候选人出现的时候没有任何缺点，那真是一件奇怪的事情，不是吗？无论如何，对于许多观众，尤其是我们的年轻一代来说，出现在媒体屏幕上的面孔比他们的同事、邻居和同学更真实，更有趣。
Whatever it is that we are seeing and reading about the issues mentioned above, and indeed countless others, all depends on the judgment of editors and network executives who are more or less self-appointed judges of what is newsworthy and what is not. Do you know what it is that most often determines what goes on the front page of a newspaper and what is lost in its back pages? Marketing. Marketing judgment is foremost in making these decisions. Secondly there’s editorial judgment. “What is good for the public to hear on this issue?” That is the question that they ask themselves, and when they formulate an answer they believe to be pleasing enough, then they put it all together and present it.
无论我们看到和阅读的是上述问题，实际上还有无数其他问题，都取决于编辑和网络管理人员的判断，他们或多或少是自我任命的判断什么是有新闻价值的，什么不是。你知道是什么决定了报纸头版的内容以及封底的内容吗？市场营销。市场判断在做出这些决定时是最重要的。其次是编辑的判断。“公众听到这个问题有什么好处？”这就是他们问自己的问题，当他们制定出一个他们认为足够令人满意的答案，然后他们把它放在一起，呈现出来。
his back and ran. It was a truly idiotic thing to do. One of the straps broke, the guy fell down when the weight of the refrigerator shifted on his back. The refrigerator naturally fell on top of him. He got hurt, and he sued the manufacturer that made the broken strap. Believe it or not, he won! Believe it or not, a judge actually awarded him a cool million for his troubles. No wonder it is that everywhere you look there are tort lawyers advertising their services to sue people on your behalf.
他的背部和运行。这真是一件愚蠢的事情。其中一条带子断了，当冰箱的重量压在他的背上时，他摔倒了。冰箱自然地落在他身上。他受伤了，他起诉了制造这条断带的制造商。信不信由你，他赢了！信不信由你，一位法官实际上为他的麻烦给了他一百万美元。难怪你看到的每个地方都有侵权行为律师为他们的服务做广告，代表你起诉别人。
Our judicial system could use tuning up too in various areas. More and more in recent years it seems that contributory negligence is not a viable factor in many lawsuits. Take this one case in particular. It happened some years back, I disremember where I read it. A guy decided to perform a stupid stunt, so he strapped a refrigerator onto
我们的司法制度也可以在各个领域进行调整。近年来，似乎越来越多的人认为，在许多诉讼中，共同过失不是一个可行的因素。以这个案例为例。这件事发生在几年前，我不记得在哪里读到过。一个家伙决定表演一个愚蠢的特技，所以他把一个冰箱绑在上面
What effect does that kind of idiotic suit have on small business? Many small companies can not afford to pay off a million dollar lawsuit and continue to thrive.
那种白痴西装对小企业有什么影响？许多小公司无法支付百万美元的诉讼费，并继续蓬勃发展。
One more really curious thing. Nowadays it seems popular to try to get government grants. There is a book that tells one how to apply and get these grants for practically any reason. There once was supposedly a team of young scientists who applied for and actually received a $ 5 000 000 grant in order to do a study of the effects of bacteria on global warming. Is it true? I don’t know. I wouldn’t say it didn’t happen.
还有一件很奇怪的事情。现在，试图获得政府资助似乎很流行。有一本书告诉人们如何申请和获得这些资助，实际上出于任何原因。据说曾经有一个由年轻科学家组成的团队，他们申请并实际收到了一笔500万美元的资金，用于研究细菌对全球变暖的影响。这是真的吗？我不知道。我不能说这没发生过。
Do we know our world well enough? Yes we know some of our world on a first hand basis but most of it we know through the media. Is that a sad thing or a good thing? I suppose it depends on whether or not the media does accurate reporting.
我们是否足够了解我们的世界？是的，我们对我们的世界有一些第一手的了解，但大部分是通过媒体了解的。这是一件悲哀的事情还是一件好事？我想这取决于媒体是否做了准确的报道。
For instance, some people in a television audience may not know one single African American personally, but he or she does know the media versions of some African Americans and their stereotypes: the up-to-date wise-cracking tough LA street kid (who might be male or female), Bill Cosby (who is described as kindly, forever smiling and self-depreciating), or Mike Tyson (described as the violent and self-destructive black male). Yes, the media magnates are undisputed experts at playing out with loving detail, the personal disasters, heroic rescues, and petty scandals that they know the viewers love. However, they take no responsibility whatsoever for providing true insights on credible issues like the politics of race, immigration, education, the national debt, mental health, or unemployment.
例如，电视观众中的一些人可能不认识一个非洲裔美国人，但他或她确实知道媒体对一些非洲裔美国人及其刻板印象：最新的聪明开窍强硬的LA街头小孩（可能是男孩或女孩），比尔·科斯比（被描述为善良、永远微笑和自我贬低），或者迈克·泰森（被描述为暴力和自我毁灭的黑人男性）。是的，媒体巨头们都是无可争议的专家，他们知道观众喜欢的爱情细节，个人灾难，英雄救美，琐碎的丑闻。然而，他们没有承担任何责任，提供真正的见解，如种族政治，移民，教育，国家债务，心理健康，或失业。
Now I ask you.
现在我问你。
How does the media shape or distort our reality on a daily basis? Do they always skim the surface of our reality, soundly biting into it at given points and taking away the bits that allow us a chance for thinking about cause and effect? Are we always to be no more than helpless “target audiences” sitting around a television screen taking in the hype? Or can we do something to influence the steady stream of images and ideas that the media present to us?
媒体如何在日常生活中塑造或扭曲我们的现实生活？他们是否总是掠过我们现实的表面，在某些特定的地方深入地研究它，拿走那些让我们有机会思考因果关系的零碎东西？难道我们永远都只是无助的“目标观众”，坐在电视屏幕前，听着天花乱坠的宣传？或者我们可以做些什么来影响媒体呈现给我们的源源不断的图像和想法？
0 条评论