評論
打印
The answers to all of these questions, as well as to other questions about the event, depend entirely on the point of view of the journalist. You might think this is an exaggeration, that reporters, irrespective of their assumptions, can at least get the facts straight. But what are "facts"? In A.J.Liebling's book Press, he gives a classic example of the problematic nature of "facts." On the same day, some years ago, both The Wall Street Journal and the now-defunct World Telegram and Sun featured a story about the streets of Moscow. Here is what The Wall Street Journal reporter wrote:
以上這些問題是否報道，完全取決于記者的觀點。你可能認為這種說法十分夸張，不管其預想如何，總可以按照事實來報道。但是什么才是“事實”？A·J·李伯齡在其所著《新聞界》一書中對于“事實”的錯綜復雜性曾提出過一個經典案例。幾年前，《華爾街日報》和現已倒閉的《世界電報與太陽報》曾在同一天對莫斯科的街道發表了特寫專稿。以下是《華爾街日報》記者對其的報道：
The streets of central Moscow are, as the guidebooks say, clean and neat; so is the famed subway. They are so because of an army of women with brooms, pans, and carts who thus earn their 35 rubles a month in lieu of "relief"; in all Moscow we never saw a mechanical street-sweeper.
莫斯科市中心的街道和著名的地下鐵，就如同旅行指南上所說，又干凈又整潔。之所以如此是因為有一群婦女每天拿著笤帚簸箕，推著手推車打掃街道，她們每月賺取三十五盧布代替政府救濟款；整個莫斯科市，我們沒見到任何一輛機械清路機。
Here is what the World Telegram and reporter wrote:
以下是《世界電報與太陽報》的報道：
Four years ago (in Moscow) women by the hundreds swept big city streets. Now you rarely see more than a dozen. The streets are kept clean with giant brushing and sprinkling machines.
四年前整個莫斯科由幾百個婦女打掃街道，現今只有十幾個婦女在打掃街道了。街道的清潔已由掃路機和噴灑機來完成。
Well, which is it? Can a dozen women look like an army? Are there giant machines cleaning the streets of Moscow or are there not? How can two trained journalists see events so differently? Well, one of them worked for The Wall Street Journal, and when these stories were written, it was the policy of the Journal to highlight the contrast between the primitive Russian economy and the sophisticated American economy. (It still is.) Does this mean the reporter for the Journal was lying? We doubt it. Each of our senses is a remarkably astute censor. We see what we expect to see; often, we focus on what we are paid to see. And those who pay us to see usuay accept their notions not only of what is important but of what are details.
兩種報道哪種才是事實？不到十幾個婦女看起來像是一群？到底有沒有大型清路機打掃街道？兩個專業記者的所見所聞怎會相差如此巨大？事實上：《華爾街日報》的記者在寫這篇報道時，正逢報社想要強調俄羅斯的初級經濟和美國的繁榮經濟的對比（到現在這家報社也這樣做）。那么這意味著這位記者在說謊嗎？未必。我們的每一種感官都是極其敏銳的審查官。我們見到的往往是我們想要看到的東西。我們常常只集中注意力去看付了錢叫我們去看的東西。而且，我們的雇主往往希望我們接受其觀點，不僅僅是其所認為的重要事件，還有重要細節。
