評論
打印
We think this kind of information would be helpful to a viewer although not for the same reason Camus did. Such information would not give an estimate of the "truth probability" of stories but it would suggest possible patterns of influence reflected in the news. After all, what is important to a person whose boss owns several oil companies might not be important to a person who doesn"t even have a boss, who is unemployed. Similarly, what a reporter who does not know the language of the people he or she reports on can see and understand will probably be different from the perceptions of another reporter who knows the language well.
我們認為諸如此類的信息對于觀眾來說是有用處的，雖然我們的理由和加繆的初衷不盡相同。這類信息雖不能對新聞真實性進行評估，但會提供給我們那些可能會影響新聞的因素，畢竟，擁有幾家石油公司的老板是誰對一些人來說很重要，對于那些連老板都沒有的失業人群，這一點可能根本不重要。同樣，一位不懂得他所報道地區語言的記者與一位精通該語言的記者，所獲得的視角可能大不相同。
What we are saying is that to answer the question "What is news?" a viewer must know something about the political beliefs and economic situation of those who provide the news. The viewer is then in a position to know why certain events are considered important by those in charge of television news and may compare those judgments with his or her own.
我們想說的是，想要回答“新聞是什么？”，必須先了解報道新聞的人所持的政治信仰和經濟狀況。之后觀眾就可以得知為何有些事件對于那些新聞掌控者才說如此重要了，甚至還可以把他們的觀點與自己的進行對比。
But here's another problem. As we have implied, even oil magnates and poorly prepared journalists do not consult, exclusively, their own interests in selecting the "truths" they will tell. Since they want people to watch their shows, they also try to determine what audiences think is important and interesting. There is, in fact, a point of view that argues against journalists imposing their own sense of significance on an audience. In this view, television news should consist only of those events that would interest the audience. The journalists must keep their own opinions to themselves. The response to this is that many viewers depend on journalists to advise them of what is important. Besides, even if journalists were mere followers of public interest, not all members of the audience agree on what they wish to know. For example, we do not happen to think that Liz Taylor's adventures in marriage were or are of any importance whatsoever to anyone but her and Michael Wilding, Nicky Hilton, Mike Todd, Eddie Fisher, Richard Burton, John Warner, Larry Fortensky, and, of course, Debbie Reynolds and Sybil Burton. Obviously, most people don't agree, which is why an announcement of her intention to marry again is featured on every television news show. What's our point? A viewer must not only know what he or she thinks is significant but what others believe is significant as well.
還有一個問題，就如同我們所說的，連石油巨頭和準備不足的記者都不會僅僅按照自己的興趣來挑選報道所謂的“真相”。為收視率著想，他們同樣也會挑選那些其認為觀眾會感興趣或認為重要的亊件進行報道。實際上，有一種觀點不認同新聞記者把他們對事情的重要性的觀點強加于觀眾。這種觀點認為，電視新聞只應該是那些能使觀眾感興趣的亊件。新聞記者必須把自己的意見放在自己肚子里。我們對此的回答是，許多觀眾指望記者告訴他們什么是重大新聞。不僅如此，縱然記者只是公眾興趣的跟隨者，也不是所有觀眾都有一致的興趣。例如，我們不認為泰勒的數次婚姻對于公眾很重要，縱然，她和她的歷任丈夫邁克爾·威爾丁、尼基·希爾頓、邁克·托德、艾迪·費舍、理査德·波頓、約翰·華納、賴瑞·弗坦斯基、岱比·雷諾德、西比爾·波頓除外。但很顯然，公眾不這樣認為，因此泰勒的每次婚姻都能占據各大報紙的頭條。因此我們認為，觀眾不僅需要知道那些他們認為重要的事，還要知道那些別人認為重要的事。
