评论
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.
我们认为诸如此类的信息对于观众来说是有用处的，虽然我们的理由和加缪的初衷不尽相同。这类信息虽不能对新闻真实性进行评估，但会提供给我们那些可能会影响新闻的因素，毕竟，拥有几家石油公司的老板是谁对一些人来说很重要，对于那些连老板都没有的失业人群，这一点可能根本不重要。同样，一位不懂得他所报道地区语言的记者与一位精通该语言的记者，所获得的视角可能大不相同。
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.
我们想说的是，想要回答“新闻是什么？”，必须先了解报道新闻的人所持的政治信仰和经济状况。之后观众就可以得知为何有些事件对于那些新闻掌控者才说如此重要了，甚至还可以把他们的观点与自己的进行对比。
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.
还有一个问题，就如同我们所说的，连石油巨头和准备不足的记者都不会仅仅按照自己的兴趣来挑选报道所谓的“真相”。为收视率着想，他们同样也会挑选那些其认为观众会感兴趣或认为重要的亊件进行报道。实际上，有一种观点不认同新闻记者把他们对事情的重要性的观点强加于观众。这种观点认为，电视新闻只应该是那些能使观众感兴趣的亊件。新闻记者必须把自己的意见放在自己肚子里。我们对此的回答是，许多观众指望记者告诉他们什么是重大新闻。不仅如此，纵然记者只是公众兴趣的跟随者，也不是所有观众都有一致的兴趣。例如，我们不认为泰勒的数次婚姻对于公众很重要，纵然，她和她的历任丈夫迈克尔·威尔丁、尼基·希尔顿、迈克·托德、艾迪·费舍、理査德·波顿、约翰·华纳、赖瑞·弗坦斯基、岱比·雷诺德、西比尔·波顿除外。但很显然，公众不这样认为，因此泰勒的每次婚姻都能占据各大报纸的头条。因此我们认为，观众不仅需要知道那些他们认为重要的事，还要知道那些别人认为重要的事。
