外文資料翻譯----電視新聞的審查

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(論文)外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　系 （院）： 中國語言文學系 </p><p>　　專業(yè)班級： </p><p>　　姓 名： </p><p>

2、　　學 號： </p><p>　　外文出處： Washington State University </p><p>　　Arts department </p><p>　　附 件： 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文。 </p>&l

3、t;p>　　注：請將該封面與附件裝訂成冊。</p><p>　　附件1.外文資料翻譯譯文</p><p><b>　　電視新聞的審查</b></p><p>　　這篇論文將包含商業(yè)電視新聞審查人關(guān)于環(huán)境方面態(tài)度的一個調(diào)查。 我將嘗試去檢查這個在公眾對更多環(huán)境信息的需求和缺乏環(huán)境新聞的流行媒體之間存在的巨大的裂痕。在其他一些事情中，調(diào)查的目

4、標是遵從以下假設(shè)：</p><p>　　廣播電視新聞審查人避免由于他們自身關(guān)于環(huán)境問題的限制而在他們的新聞中掩蓋環(huán)境問題。</p><p>　　最初的問題是個簡單的數(shù)學問題?，F(xiàn)在人們要面對一系列需要得知信息的問題，知道這些信息需要花費時間，人們一般把時間花到電視新聞上面。這個被新聞覆蓋時間的總量叫新聞角色。通過對電臺新聞廣播和網(wǎng)絡(luò)新聞內(nèi)容的分析顯示：真正的新聞是很有限的。</p>

5、;<p>　　舉一個例子，通過對一個關(guān)于多于17000個新聞臺超過三個月的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，一個30分鐘的新聞實際只有非常少的時間給真正的新聞。平均下來，商業(yè)新聞?wù)及朔昼姡w育新聞?wù)妓姆昼姡鞖忸A(yù)報占三分鐘。半數(shù)以上的新聞沒有什么質(zhì)量。（盡管我承認體育新聞和天氣預(yù)報對人們的生活也很重要，但是我還是要申明最少我們所關(guān)心的有關(guān)公共教育，信息的問題的新聞還是非常有限。）</p><p>　　沒有情況說明這些初始的

6、數(shù)據(jù)是新聞附加的元素，包括一些談話節(jié)目，如“緩沖器”和“廣告牌”。這些圖形元素是用來緩沖兩個分開的新聞。提供或轉(zhuǎn)換原有的信息在新聞廣播和商業(yè)之間。這些所有的元素都要從真正的新聞信息中扣除。Lichter(1998)分析了這個問題顯示新聞中有4分鐘是關(guān)于犯罪的新聞。</p><p>　　所以當所有的非新聞元素都附加到犯罪新聞中，一個24分鐘20秒的新聞并不都是真正的嚴肅的新聞。當中只有5分40秒的時間是播放一天中真

7、正重要的新聞。</p><p>　　平均下來，那些故事如何填補那些保留的一部分新聞的空缺呢？根據(jù)1999年關(guān)于杰出記者的研究，本地新聞比較短，它指出70%的新聞少與一分鐘。一般的新聞大概35秒。對于5分40秒而言，這個時間足夠給10個新聞了。</p><p>　　甚至與一些如小新聞，重要的問題仍然需要完善。某些東西在新聞中是沒有什么用的，但它還是占據(jù)了新聞的大量時間。還有些事情如失足少年，

8、一個長的像名人頭的南瓜。在紐約州的北部，一個電臺最近花了幾分鐘報道“每年圣誕節(jié)的詩歌”，像這樣一些故事總是從重要新聞?wù)加械臅r間中搶走時間。</p><p>　　這些所表示的只是眾多事情中的一些。 這些重要的時間將占用不到三十秒的時間。所以說，這么少的時間，那么到底該報道些什么呢。 這就是“新聞審查者”要做的事情。</p><p>　　我認為，為了公眾了解周圍的世界，他們應(yīng)該了解環(huán)境學家所制

9、的“完全信息”。他們就可以依照相關(guān)的事情做出合理的決定。</p><p>　　習慣的說法是媒體的角色去幫助提供有關(guān)的事實。它讓媒體除去各種信息，這些心事是他們有權(quán)去決定的，是讓人們最想知道的故事和事實。但是，誰在媒體中作出掩蓋事實的決定呢。</p><p>　　記者報道事實，但是是編輯，制作人和新聞主編他們決定哪一個事情將被掩蓋，和如何掩蓋。因為有這個權(quán)力，他們被人們成為“新聞審查者”，那

10、些決定掩蓋事情像通過一道門一樣，讓被掩蓋的事情出現(xiàn)在電視臺，網(wǎng)絡(luò)，廣播上。</p><p>　　盡管“新聞審查者”不象記者，但是這些決策者非常重要。通常的說法，每一個新聞都被經(jīng)過掩飾。因此，一些新聞過濾是需要去決定哪個將被受眾聽到或看到。 這種過濾大都在編輯會議上通過和記者的討論而決定。</p><p>　　就像一個簡單的電子指揮棒，掌握著關(guān)鍵鑰匙的人決定著大眾談?wù)摰脑掝}是什么，另一方面，

11、通過他們的否決，那些事實消失在歷史的灰燼中。</p><p>　　顯然，這些魔術(shù)家不會提供那些美國人真正想知道的環(huán)境信息。很多最近的調(diào)查顯示，環(huán)境問題是人們想知道的三大信息之一。</p><p>　　然而，電視網(wǎng)絡(luò)，新聞網(wǎng)絡(luò)并不將環(huán)境信息列為十大節(jié)目（教育和宗教信仰是另兩個被媒體忽視的問題）。盡管很多有關(guān)環(huán)境的報道在1990年贏得了很多獎項，包括12個普利策獎。在十年里，兩個普利策最高獎授

12、予給環(huán)境報道，包括1990年普利策獎——國家報道（西亞圖時報報道的阿拉斯加瓦爾迪茲海岸石油泄露的真相；華盛頓日報報道：因水質(zhì)量問題而導(dǎo)致城市多人死亡的報道） 另外，最高服務(wù)獎授予Sigma Delta Chi(一個記者組織)關(guān)于環(huán)境的報道，六個新聞報紙獎中的兩個授予記者調(diào)查組織有關(guān)環(huán)境問題的暴光。環(huán)境問題的研究者也因調(diào)查1998年環(huán)境問題而獲得了Murrow獎。</p><p>　　為什么關(guān)于環(huán)境的新聞報道如此重

13、要呢？ 我認為，環(huán)境問題就算不是人類在這個世紀所面對的最重要的問題，那么也可以算是寥寥的幾個重要問題致意。不管新聞提供者的義務(wù)是什么，媒體新聞審查者沒有提供足夠環(huán)境問題的背景。 因此，美國人不知道人類的行為對環(huán)境有怎樣的一種影響。Albert Gore, Jr.作為田納西州的參議員時，他寫到：</p><p>　　媒體現(xiàn)在和將來都有責任去提供信息、教育、告訴我們今天會發(fā)生什么，他們還應(yīng)該告訴我們它為什么會發(fā)生，它

14、對我們是什么意思？他們能夠并且去報道現(xiàn)在正在發(fā)生什么，為什么發(fā)生…..新聞報道是通過對問題和熱點引起注意，出去政治。 環(huán)境報道是沒有什么不同的。</p><p>　　Gore所說的絕對是正確的，媒體扮演著一個主要的角色，這個角色決定著人么討論什么，人們在想什么。 如果媒體不去報道環(huán)境問題，他們逃避他們的責任，就像Gore所說的，報道和教育公眾是一個意義重大的事情。</p><p>　　我希

15、望能決定新聞審查者對環(huán)境問題做出什么樣的決定。我調(diào)查了本地和其他州的大約2000家商業(yè)廣播電視臺的“新聞審查者”。 我想知道這些新聞審查者如何接受他們的有關(guān)環(huán)境的背景知識，他們接受什么樣的這方面的背景知識，他們在哪得到這些有關(guān)環(huán)境的信息的。什么樣的環(huán)境報道在他們的眼中是有價值的。我同樣想知道當發(fā)生環(huán)境問題和商業(yè)新聞兩者可以報道的時候，他們會做出什么樣的選擇？</p><p>　　最重要的一點，我希望尋找他們的有關(guān)

16、環(huán)境知識和對環(huán)境問題的觀點。我想知道，那些新聞審查者是缺乏環(huán)境方面的知識，還是想故意掩蓋那些事實。</p><p>　　通過研究和深入的數(shù)據(jù)分析，我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)媒體不提供公眾渴望知道的有關(guān)環(huán)境方面的新聞。而“新聞審查者”就是提不提供信息的關(guān)鍵。</p><p>　　就像我們前面所討論的，我相信受眾為了有權(quán)利知道他們所生活的世界所發(fā)生的事情，他們必須盡可能的知道他們所處理的信息。然而，顯然是失

17、敗的，新聞組織者所造成的“市場扭曲”在公眾之間已經(jīng)在爭論了。</p><p>　　我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)那些環(huán)境方面的信息，如果建立在一種規(guī)則之上，世界上將不會發(fā)生對此所產(chǎn)生的爭論。就像這個研究所顯示，一種在電視新聞上增加有關(guān)環(huán)境方面的信息報道的方法是對那些決策者進行教育。</p><p>　　顯然，通過這種研究，我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)對未來的觀測有很多種方法。當然，這個知識要點是值得去深度檢查的。我建議，以

18、后的調(diào)查和新聞應(yīng)該由更專業(yè)的人進行指導(dǎo)。同樣，也應(yīng)該對新聞審查者的知識教育層次進行調(diào)查，看看他們是否具有相對應(yīng)的知識。如果可能的話，他們應(yīng)該檢查對新聞審查人在環(huán)境方面的教育是否會對掩蓋公眾所關(guān)心有關(guān)環(huán)境方面的信息有所影響。</p><p>　　換句話說，對新聞審查人關(guān)于如何掩蓋、掩蓋什么方面的教育也很重要。如果對電視審查人的教育導(dǎo)致環(huán)境問題方面的報道過多過剩，也是不好的。 如何對這些“新聞審查者”教育，讓他們對電

19、視審查的水平提高？如果這些有關(guān)方面已經(jīng)在大學的新聞?wù)n程訓練中做的話會如何？那是不是有可能增加關(guān)于環(huán)境信息報道的一定比例？是不是就可以更好的滿足大眾對環(huán)境信息的需求呢？我們說，是有可能的。</p><p>　　最后，我建議一些電視臺應(yīng)該決定給這些新聞審查員進行更好的教育。然后，一個有關(guān)環(huán)境知識同環(huán)境新聞的報道量之間將回建立一個直接的聯(lián)系。越好的教育將越能很好的滿足公眾對這方面的要求。</p><

20、p>　　附件2.外文原文（復(fù)印件）</p><p>　　TV News’ coverage</p><p>　　This thesis will involve a survey of commercial television news gatekeepers with the hope of ascertaining their attitudes and beliefs in

21、regard to environmental information. It will attempt to examine the wide gap that is evident between the public’s desire for more environmental information, and the dearth of environmental news carried by the popular med

22、ia. Among other things, the goal of this survey is to address the following hypothesis:</p><p>　　“Broadcast television news gatekeepers avoid covering environmental stories in their newscasts because they ha

23、ve a very limited base of knowledge about the complex issues involving the environment.”</p><p>　　I believe that in order for a citizenry to make informed decisions about the world around them, they must hav

24、e what economists refer to as “complete information.” That is, as many relevant facts as possible at their disposal so they might then make the most appropriate decisions.</p><p>　　Conventional wisdom says i

25、t is the media’s role to help provide those pertinent facts. And it is up to the media to weed through all the various amounts of information they have access to and determine which stories and facts are the most signifi

26、cant for the people they are trying to reach. But who in the media makes the decisions about what will be covered?</p><p>　　Reporters cover the stories, but it is the assignment editors, producers and news d

27、irectors who decide which stories will receive that coverage, and often the tone of the coverage as well. Because of this power, they are often described as “gatekeepers” – those who decide which of the many stories offe

28、red for coverage will actually make it through the “gates” and onto the station’s, or network’s, broadcasts.</p><p>　　Although not as visible as a reporter or anchor, these decision-makers are much more impo

29、rtant. Generally, every news outlet has a limited amount of space available for news. Therefore, some filtering is required to determine what will be heard or seen in that limited news hole and what will not. That filter

30、ing is done at editorial meetings, during story discussions and through casual communication with reporters.</p><p>　　By a simple wave of their electronic wands, people holding these key positions decide wha

31、t topics make it into the realm of public discourse, and which, by their rejection, will more than likely be relegated to the ash heap of history. </p><p>　　Clearly though, these magicians are not providing

32、information about the environment that the average American really wants to know. Several recent surveys show the environment to be among the top three issues about which people want more information.</p><p>

33、;　　However, content analyses of network television newscasts do not include the environment in the top ten topics to receive airtime (Education and religion are other topics with such a disconnect in the media). This, de

34、spite the fact that environmental stories won dozens of major awards throughout the 1990’s, including more than a dozen Pulitzer prizes. Two of the very first Pulitzers of the decade were awarded for environmental covera

35、ge, including the 1990 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, w</p><p>　　So why is it important that news outlets report environmental stories? I believe the environment is if not the most important issue co

36、nfronting humans in this century, then among the top few. And despite their obligations as news providers, the media gatekeepers are failing to provide enough context for environmental stories. Therefore, Americans are n

37、ot able to make informed decisions about the human impact on the environment. When Albert Gore, Jr. (1991) was a Democratic Senator from Tennessee</p><p>　　The media have a responsibility to inform and to ed

38、ucate, to tell us not only what is happening today but also why it is happening and what it will mean to us – today and tomorrow. They can and should not only report what is happening, but what could happen… News reporti

39、ng, by drawing attention to problems and issues, moves policy. Environmental reporting is no different. (p. 183) </p><p>　　Gore is absolutely right; the media play a major role in determining what people d

40、iscuss and what they think about. If the media do not report on environmental stories, they are simply shirking their responsibility to, as Gore said, inform and educate the public on a very significant topic.</p>

41、<p>　　I hope to determine how the gatekeepers make their decisions in regard to environmental stories. I will do this by constructing a survey instrument that will be sent to approximately 2,000 commercial broadcas

42、t television gatekeepers at both the local and the national level. I want to know how these gatekeepers receive their own background information, from what sources they receive this information, where they get their envi

43、ronmental story ideas, and what makes an environmental story newsworthy </p><p>　　Most importantly, I want to probe their knowledge and views about environmental issues. I want to explore how their knowledge

44、, or lack of knowledge about environmental matters, might shape their coverage of those issues. </p><p>　　The initial problem is simply one of mathematics. In a world where people face a wide array of issues

45、 about which they should be well informed, the time actually allotted in television newscasts to informing the public about these issues is miniscule. The total amount of time given to news coverage is called the news ho

46、le by journalists. Content analyses of both local station newscasts and broadcast network newscasts show the actual news hole is very limited.</p><p>　　For example, one study involving more than 17,000 local

47、 news broadcasts over a three-month period (Lichter, 1998) found that a typical 30-minute newscast actually had very little time for real news. On average, commercials took up eight minutes of the broadcast. Sports news

48、accounted for four minutes of airtime, while weather took on average three minutes. So fully half the newscast involves little of substance (although I will admit that sports and weather have importance in many people’s

49、lives</p><p>　　Not accounted for in these initial figures are the additional production elements of a newscast, including anchor chitchat and what is known as “bumpers” and “billboards.” These graphics eleme

50、nts are used to buffer two separate news elements, to provide textual information or to transition between the newscast and commercials. All these elements also deduct from the available news hole. The Lichter (1998) ana

51、lysis further found that another four minutes on average was taken up by crime news, mos</p><p>　　So when all non-news elements are added together along with the major amount of time given over to crime news

52、, a full 24 minutes and 20 seconds of the newscast is not available for serious journalism. Just 5 minutes and 40 seconds remain to cover those issues of the day deemed critical for an informed citizenry.</p><

53、p>　　On average, how many stories will fill that remaining portion of a station’s news hole? According to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (1999), stories on local newscasts are short; its analysis i

54、ndicates that fully 70% of all stories are a minute or less in length. The median story length in the study was just 35 seconds. With 5 minutes and 40 seconds remaining then, that would leave on average enough time for f

55、ewer than ten stories.</p><p>　　Yet even with such a small news hole remaining, serious issues still must compete for airtime. Something else that eats away at the remaining news hole that is not included in

56、 the content analysis is the amount of news coverage spent on light features, or what some derogatorily refer to as “fluff.” Stories such as lost puppies, and pumpkins that have grown into the shape of a famous person’s

57、head. Here in upstate New York, a station recently spent several minutes of an evening newscast to presen</p><p>　　What this means is that any significant stories must fight for space with a wide number of o

58、ther issues over what amounts to a miniscule amount of time for news. And those significant stories will more than likely receive no more than 30 seconds or so of airtime to place them in any appropriate context – to exp

59、lain why they are important to the average person’s life. </p><p>　　So, with that small amount of time allotted to news coverage, what topics are making it through the gatekeepers and onto the nightly newsca

60、sts?</p><p>　　This study, and its embedded data analysis, finds that the media are not providing the environmental news being demanded by a public craving that information. It has also found that one key in

61、getting environmental information on the air is to better educate those in a position to decide what stories are covered – the gatekeepers. </p><p>　　As discussed earlier in this paper, it is the author’s be

62、lief that in order to have citizens capable of making informed decisions about the world around them, they must have as much information as possible at their disposal. Yet, the obvious failure of news organizations to ca

63、rry environmental news creates “market distortions” in the public debate over these issues.</p><p>　　It would seem that environmental information, if carried on a regular basis, would go a long way toward be

64、tter informing the environmental debates underway in this country and around the world. And as this study has shown, one way to increase the amount of environmental information that television stations carry is to educat

65、e TV decision makers.</p><p>　　Clearly a number of avenues for future exploration have made themselves evident through this initial research. Of course, the knowledge issue is certainly worthy of a more in-d

66、epth examination. I would suggest that follow-up surveys be conducted, probing this link with greater specificity. These surveys should focus a great deal more on determining the knowledge levels of the gatekeepers, and

67、the role this knowledge, or lack of it, plays in the coverage assignments made by the gatekeepers. If po</p><p>　　In other words, it’s important that further research try to determine how to increase overall

68、 coverage through educational means. If some education of television news gatekeepers leads to an incremental increase in news overage of environmental issues, how can the educational process be changed for gatekeepers,

69、so that even more coverage can be assured? What might be done during journalist training in college that might increase coverage of environmental news issues at a rate more proportionate </p><p>　　Finally, I

70、 would suggest that some pilot programs be established to determine the best way to educate gatekeepers. After all, with a direct link seen between their knowledge of environmental issues and the amount of environmental

71、news carried by television outlets, it makes sense that their education should then be a focus of groups concerned with these issues.</p><p>　　way to educate gatekeepers. After all, with a direct link seen b

72、etween their knowledge of environmental issues and the amount of environmental news carried by television outlets, it makes sense that their education should then be a focus of groups concerned with these issues.</p&g