外文资料翻译电视新闻的审查.doc

毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译系 （院）： 中国语言文学系 专业班级： 姓 名： 学 号： 外文出处： Washington State University Arts department 附 件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文。 指导教师评语： 签名： 2006年 5 月 16 日注：请将该封面与附件装订成册。附件1.外文资料翻译译文电视新闻的审查这篇论文将包含商业电视新闻审查人关于环境方面态度的一个调查。 我将尝试去检查这个在公众对更多环境信息的需求和缺乏环境新闻的流行媒体之间存在的巨大的裂痕。在其他一些事情中，调查的目标是遵从以下假设：广播电视新闻审查人避免由于他们自身关于环境问题的限制而在他们的新闻中掩盖环境问题。最初的问题是个简单的数学问题。现在人们要面对一系列需要得知信息的问题，知道这些信息需要花费时间，人们一般把时间花到电视新闻上面。这个被新闻覆盖时间的总量叫新闻角色。通过对电台新闻广播和网络新闻内容的分析显示：真正的新闻是很有限的。举一个例子，通过对一个关于多于17000个新闻台超过三个月的调查发现，一个30分钟的新闻实际只有非常少的时间给真正的新闻。平均下来，商业新闻占八分钟，体育新闻占四分钟，天气预报占三分钟。半数以上的新闻没有什么质量。（尽管我承认体育新闻和天气预报对人们的生活也很重要，但是我还是要申明最少我们所关心的有关公共教育，信息的问题的新闻还是非常有限。）没有情况说明这些初始的数据是新闻附加的元素，包括一些谈话节目，如“缓冲器”和“广告牌”。这些图形元素是用来缓冲两个分开的新闻。提供或转换原有的信息在新闻广播和商业之间。这些所有的元素都要从真正的新闻信息中扣除。Lichter(1998)分析了这个问题显示新闻中有4分钟是关于犯罪的新闻。所以当所有的非新闻元素都附加到犯罪新闻中，一个24分钟20秒的新闻并不都是真正的严肃的新闻。当中只有5分40秒的时间是播放一天中真正重要的新闻。平均下来，那些故事如何填补那些保留的一部分新闻的空缺呢？根据1999年关于杰出记者的研究，本地新闻比较短，它指出70%的新闻少与一分钟。一般的新闻大概35秒。对于5分40秒而言，这个时间足够给10个新闻了。甚至与一些如小新闻，重要的问题仍然需要完善。某些东西在新闻中是没有什么用的，但它还是占据了新闻的大量时间。还有些事情如失足少年，一个长的像名人头的南瓜。在纽约州的北部，一个电台最近花了几分钟报道“每年圣诞节的诗歌”，像这样一些故事总是从重要新闻占有的时间中抢走时间。这些所表示的只是众多事情中的一些。 这些重要的时间将占用不到三十秒的时间。所以说，这么少的时间，那么到底该报道些什么呢。 这就是“新闻审查者”要做的事情。我认为，为了公众了解周围的世界，他们应该了解环境学家所制的“完全信息”。他们就可以依照相关的事情做出合理的决定。习惯的说法是媒体的角色去帮助提供有关的事实。它让媒体除去各种信息，这些心事是他们有权去决定的，是让人们最想知道的故事和事实。但是，谁在媒体中作出掩盖事实的决定呢。记者报道事实，但是是编辑，制作人和新闻主编他们决定哪一个事情将被掩盖，和如何掩盖。因为有这个权力，他们被人们成为“新闻审查者”，那些决定掩盖事情像通过一道门一样，让被掩盖的事情出现在电视台，网络，广播上。尽管“新闻审查者”不象记者，但是这些决策者非常重要。通常的说法，每一个新闻都被经过掩饰。因此，一些新闻过滤是需要去决定哪个将被受众听到或看到。 这种过滤大都在编辑会议上通过和记者的讨论而决定。就像一个简单的电子指挥棒，掌握着关键钥匙的人决定着大众谈论的话题是什么，另一方面，通过他们的否决，那些事实消失在历史的灰烬中。显然，这些魔术家不会提供那些美国人真正想知道的环境信息。很多最近的调查显示，环境问题是人们想知道的三大信息之一。然而，电视网络，新闻网络并不将环境信息列为十大节目（教育和宗教信仰是另两个被媒体忽视的问题）。尽管很多有关环境的报道在1990年赢得了很多奖项，包括12个普利策奖。在十年里，两个普利策最高奖授予给环境报道，包括1990年普利策奖国家报道（西亚图时报报道的阿拉斯加瓦尔迪兹海岸石油泄露的真相；华盛顿日报报道：因水质量问题而导致城市多人死亡的报道） 另外，最高服务奖授予Sigma Delta Chi(一个记者组织)关于环境的报道，六个新闻报纸奖中的两个授予记者调查组织有关环境问题的暴光。环境问题的研究者也因调查1998年环境问题而获得了Murrow奖。为什么关于环境的新闻报道如此重要呢？ 我认为，环境问题就算不是人类在这个世纪所面对的最重要的问题，那么也可以算是寥寥的几个重要问题致意。不管新闻提供者的义务是什么，媒体新闻审查者没有提供足够环境问题的背景。 因此，美国人不知道人类的行为对环境有怎样的一种影响。Albert Gore, Jr.作为田纳西州的参议员时，他写到：媒体现在和将来都有责任去提供信息、教育、告诉我们今天会发生什么，他们还应该告诉我们它为什么会发生，它对我们是什么意思？他们能够并且去报道现在正在发生什么，为什么发生.新闻报道是通过对问题和热点引起注意，出去政治。 环境报道是没有什么不同的。Gore所说的绝对是正确的，媒体扮演着一个主要的角色，这个角色决定着人么讨论什么，人们在想什么。 如果媒体不去报道环境问题，他们逃避他们的责任，就像Gore所说的，报道和教育公众是一个意义重大的事情。我希望能决定新闻审查者对环境问题做出什么样的决定。我调查了本地和其他州的大约2000家商业广播电视台的“新闻审查者”。 我想知道这些新闻审查者如何接受他们的有关环境的背景知识，他们接受什么样的这方面的背景知识，他们在哪得到这些有关环境的信息的。什么样的环境报道在他们的眼中是有价值的。我同样想知道当发生环境问题和商业新闻两者可以报道的时候，他们会做出什么样的选择？最重要的一点，我希望寻找他们的有关环境知识和对环境问题的观点。我想知道，那些新闻审查者是缺乏环境方面的知识，还是想故意掩盖那些事实。通过研究和深入的数据分析，我们可以发现媒体不提供公众渴望知道的有关环境方面的新闻。而“新闻审查者”就是提不提供信息的关键。就像我们前面所讨论的，我相信受众为了有权利知道他们所生活的世界所发生的事情，他们必须尽可能的知道他们所处理的信息。然而，显然是失败的，新闻组织者所造成的“市场扭曲”在公众之间已经在争论了。我们可以发现那些环境方面的信息，如果建立在一种规则之上，世界上将不会发生对此所产生的争论。就像这个研究所显示，一种在电视新闻上增加有关环境方面的信息报道的方法是对那些决策者进行教育。显然，通过这种研究，我们可以发现对未来的观测有很多种方法。当然，这个知识要点是值得去深度检查的。我建议，以后的调查和新闻应该由更专业的人进行指导。同样，也应该对新闻审查者的知识教育层次进行调查，看看他们是否具有相对应的知识。如果可能的话，他们应该检查对新闻审查人在环境方面的教育是否会对掩盖公众所关心有关环境方面的信息有所影响。换句话说，对新闻审查人关于如何掩盖、掩盖什么方面的教育也很重要。如果对电视审查人的教育导致环境问题方面的报道过多过剩，也是不好的。 如何对这些“新闻审查者”教育，让他们对电视审查的水平提高？如果这些有关方面已经在大学的新闻课程训练中做的话会如何？那是不是有可能增加关于环境信息报道的一定比例？是不是就可以更好的满足大众对环境信息的需求呢？我们说，是有可能的。最后，我建议一些电视台应该决定给这些新闻审查员进行更好的教育。然后，一个有关环境知识同环境新闻的报道量之间将回建立一个直接的联系。越好的教育将越能很好的满足公众对这方面的要求。附件2.外文原文（复印件）TV News coverageThis thesis will involve a survey of commercial television news gatekeepers with the hope of ascertaining their attitudes and beliefs in regard to environmental information. It will attempt to examine the wide gap that is evident between the publics desire for more environmental information, and the dearth of environmental news carried by the popular media. Among other things, the goal of this survey is to address the following hypothesis:“Broadcast television news gatekeepers avoid covering environmental stories in their newscasts because they have a very limited base of knowledge about the complex issues involving the environment.”I believe that in order for a citizenry to make informed decisions about the world around them, they must have 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.Conventional wisdom says it is the medias 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 significant for the people they are trying to reach. But who in the media makes the decisions about what will be covered?Reporters cover the stories, but it is the assignment editors, producers and news directors 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 offered for coverage will actually make it through the “gates” and onto the stations, or networks, broadcasts.Although not as visible as a reporter or anchor, these decision-makers are much more important. 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 filtering is done at editorial meetings, during story discussions and through casual communication with reporters.By a simple wave of their electronic wands, people holding these key positions decide what 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. Clearly though, these magicians are not providing 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.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, despite the fact that environmental stories won dozens of major awards throughout the 1990s, including more than a dozen Pulitzer prizes. Two of the very first Pulitzers of the decade were awarded for environmental coverage, including the 1990 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, which went to the Seattle Times for its coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, and the 1990 prize for Public Service, which went to the Washington (N.C.) Daily News for a series of reports on carcinogens in that citys drinking water. In addition, five Distinguished Service Awards from Sigma Delta Chi (a journalism organization) went to environmental reporting, and two of the six newspaper awards given by the group Investigative Reporters and Editors honored environmental exposes. This researcher also won a national Murrow Award in 1998 for an investigative series dealing with environmental issues.So why is it important that news outlets report environmental stories? I believe the environment is if not the most important issue confronting 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 not able to make informed decisions about the human impact on the environment. When Albert Gore, Jr. (1991) was a Democratic Senator from Tennessee, he wrote that:The media have a responsibility to inform and to educate, 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 reporting, by drawing attention to problems and issues, moves policy. Environmental reporting is no different. (p. 183) Gore is absolutely right; the media play a major role in determining what people discuss 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.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 broadcast 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 environmental story ideas, and what makes an environmental story newsworthy in their eyes. I also want to know whether they think business or environmental interests are the most credible when it comes to environmental issues.Most importantly, I want to probe their knowledge and views about environmental issues. I want to explore how their knowledge, or lack of knowledge about environmental matters, might shape their coverage of those issues. The initial problem is simply one of mathematics. In a world where people face a wide array of issues 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 hole by journalists. Content analyses of both local station newscasts and broadcast network newscasts show the actual news hole is very limited.For example, one study involving more than 17,000 local 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 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 peoples lives, I would argue that at least for our focus here, informing and educating the public about significant issues, their value is limited). 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 elements 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) analysis further found that another four minutes on average was taken up by crime news, most often sensational in nature. So when all non-news elements are added together along with the major amount of time given over to crime news, 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.On average, how many stories will fill that remaining portion of a stations news hole? According to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (1999), stories on local newscasts are short; its analysis indicates 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 fewer than ten stories.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 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 persons head. Here in upstate New York, a station recently spent several minutes of an evening newscast to present its “Annual Christmas pet poem.” All these stories take away precious news time from the more important issues.What this means is that any significant stories must fight for space with a wide number of other 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 explain why they are important to the average persons life. So, with that small amount of time allotted to news coverage, what topics are making it through the gatekeepers and onto the nightly newscasts?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 getting environmental information on the air is to better educate those in a position to decide what stories are covered the gatekeepers. As discussed earlier in this paper, it is the authors belief 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 carry environmental news creates “market distortions” in the public debate over these issues.It would seem that environmental information, if carried on a regular basis, would go a long way toward better 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 educate TV decision makers.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-depth 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 knowl