評論
打印
Even beyond that, though, Sterling's address was just plain watchable: urgent, sincere, impassioned -
不過，即便如此，斯特林的講話還是顯而易見的急迫、真誠、熱情——
exactly the kind of thing we've been taught, by decades of earnest films and Aaron Sorkin teleplays, to see as a stirring outcropping of authentic humanity into the hot air and hedging of politics.
正是我們從幾十年的嚴肅電影和阿倫·索爾金的電視劇中學到的東西，讓我們看到真實人性在政治的熱浪中激蕩的迸發(fā)。
But then the problem - the intractable, signature problem of our moment - is that for many people, the same was true of Carone.
但如今棘手的標志性問題在于，對于許多人而言，卡隆也是如此。
It's not as if we've had any shortage, lately, of people clamoring for the role of vivid truth-tellers against an incorrigible system.
最近，我們并沒有出現(xiàn)過這樣的情況：有人叫嚷著要扮演一個生動的真理講述者的角色，反對一個無法治愈的體系。
Our president, for one, learned long ago that people enjoyed watching him abandon the decorum usually brought to the office.
例如，我們的總統(tǒng)很久以前就知道，人們喜歡看他放棄在辦公室中應有的禮節(jié)。
Add to that his unique lack of attachment to consistent principles or positions or sets of facts, and often all that's left when the White House speaks is raw interpersonal drama - taunting, baiting, shaming, flattering or humiliating whomever it is that's being addressed.
再加上他對一貫的原則、立場或一系列事實缺乏興趣，而且當他在白宮發(fā)表講話時，通常只剩下原始的人際關系戲劇——嘲弄、誘餌、羞辱、奉承或羞辱正在討論的人。
This is the approach to communication that made Carone more watchable than any of the more polished crackpots around her.
正是這種溝通方式讓卡隆比周圍任何一個更光鮮的瘋子都更容易被觀察得到。
It tends to stick in the mind.
它往往會留在腦海里。
The Trump administration spent less time engaging the press than any since Reagan's, but you may well carry forward more indelible memories of its surreal theater than you will from eight years' worth of Obama briefings -
特朗普政府與媒體接觸的時間比里根執(zhí)政以來的任何一屆都少，但你很可能會對其超現(xiàn)實主義戲劇留下更多難以磨滅的記憶，而不是你從奧巴馬8年的簡報中得到的記憶——
whether you thought that spectacle came at the expense of the presidency, or the press corps, or just the nation.
不管你認為這場奇觀是以犧牲總統(tǒng)、記者團還是整個國家為代價的。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學習交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉載。
