新世紀(jì)英語(yǔ)四課文翻譯

　　英語(yǔ)應(yīng)該怎么翻譯呢？很多同學(xué)在學(xué)習(xí)英語(yǔ)的時(shí)候，都很煩惱課文的翻譯。以下是小編整理的新世紀(jì)英語(yǔ)四課文翻譯，歡迎閱讀。

　　How do mainstream media become mainstream?

　　Part of the reason I write about media is that I'm interested in all kinds of knowledge and culture, and the easiest thing to study is the media. Every day we find the media. So you can do systematic research, and compare the differences between today and yesterday. There is a lot of evidence for the media to exaggerate what is being played out, what is not exaggerated, and how the media is building things.

　　My impression of the media has always been that it is not very different from the academic or, for example, the journals that make the case for intellectuals, although there are some additional restrictions. But they interact with each other, and that's why people move freely between these fields. You want to study the media as scientists study a complex molecule. You look at the internal organizational structure of the media and then make some assumptions about what media products might look like on that basis. Then you look at media products to see if the situation is consistent with your assumptions. In fact, the work of media analysis belongs to the last one -- to study carefully what media products are, and whether these products meet the assumptions of those who know the nature and structure of the media.

　　So what did you find? First of all, you found that different media are doing different things, such as entertainment or Hollywood, soap, etc., or even most of the domestic (most) of the newspaper, they are in the lead the masses.

　　Another part of the media, the elite media, media are sometimes referred to as setting issues, because resources are rich, they set a framework for other peers in this framework, such as the New York times and CBS. Their audiences are mostly privileged. People who read the New York times - the rich or sometimes called some of the political class - are actually engaged in the political system. They basically is the management of one kind or another, may be managers in the field of politics, business managers (e.g., the company's management, etc.), Dr Managers (e.g., a professor at the university), or those for people to see a problem with thinking and methods for planning arrangement.

　　Elite media sets the framework for other media to operate. If you were watching the ap news, it continuously published a lot of messages, around three o 'clock in the afternoon it will suspend release new message, come out a every day the same notice: "dear editor note: tomorrow, the New York times front page will be issued the following news." The aim is that if you are a city of Dayton, Ohio, the editor of a newspaper, but there was no news sources, can think of or don't bother to dig the news, the announcement to tell you what news. The news is on the fourth page of your home page, and you leave it to non-local news or entertainment news. Put them in those pages because the New York times tells you what to watch tomorrow. If you're Ohio

　　Editor of a newspaper in Dayton, state, you can say that you have to do that because you lack the resources. If you don't do it by the rules, you'll soon see the consequences if you don't like it. In fact, the recent events in the SAN jose mercury news are a case in point. If you're off track, there are plenty of things you can do to get you back on track. If you break the pattern, it won't last long. That framework works well, it just reflects the obvious power structure, understandable.

　　The real mass media is basically entertainment. Let them do something else, so long as they don't bother us (" we "means people who control everything). For example, let them be interested in the sport of professional sport, which fascinates people about professional sports, sex scandals, celebrities and their problems, and so on. Anything, as long as it doesn't involve serious content. Of course, serious matters should be addressed by "us".

　　What are the elite media that set the agenda? For example, the New York times and CBS. First, they are both large and highly profitable companies, and most of them are in contact with larger companies like general electric or Westinghouse, or are wholly owned by them. In the framework of the system of private ownership, their status is high. Companies are basically autocratic, hierarchical and top-down control systems. If you don't like what they are doing, please do it yourself. The mainstream media is only part of that system.

　　What is the environment of the media system? It's basically the same thing. Interacting with them are all other important centres of power - government, other companies or universities. Because the media is a theoretical system, they are closely related to universities. Suppose you are a reporter to write a report about southeast Asia or Africa, you should to find a famous university expert to tell you what to write, or to a certain foundation, such as the brookings institute or the American enterprise institute, they will tell you what to say. These peripheral institutions are very similar to the media.

　　Universities, for example, are not independent institutions. While there may be some independent people in college, the media is the same, and so are the companies. In this regard, the fascist countries also have independent people. But the university itself is a parasitic institution that rely on external support, the support, such as private wealth fund companies and the government (the government and corporate power linked so closely that you even it is difficult to distinguish between both), the university's basic survival in them. Who find themselves in the midst of college without adaptation, not willing to accept and agree with the structure of people (if you don't agree with it, to believe in it, you won't be able to work together with it), will gradually be cleared out, from kindergarten began. There are many ways to filter out those pesky, independent thinkers. People who have gone to college know that the education system is a very good system for encouraging conformity. If you don't follow the rules, you will make trouble. Thus, the people who eventually leave behind this filter are the ones that really, honestly (and not pretend to) identify with the beliefs and attitudes of the social power class. The top schools, such as harvard and Princeton, and those small, high schools, have social functions. If you go through a school like harvard, where most of the time it's taught how to behave like a member of the upper class, how to think correctly and so on.

　　Well, look at the structure of the whole system. What do you expect the news to be? The results were obvious. We take the New York times as an example, it's a company that sells products, and its products are its audience. They didn't make money when you bought their newspaper. They are also happy to put newspapers on the Internet for free reading. In fact, selling newspapers is a loss to them. But the audience is their real product. Their product is the privileged class, you know, like those newspaper writers who are at the top of society making decisions. You have to sell products to the market, which, of course, refers to advertisers (ie, other industries). They sell their audiences, whether it's television or newspapers or any other media. These companies sell their audiences to other companies. This is big business for elite media.

　　Well, what do you expect to happen? What can you predict about the nature of media products in such a social environment? What would be the null hypothesis based on no further assumptions? The obvious assumption is that media products - both tangible and intangible - tend to reflect the interests of buyers and sellers around the media, the interests of these institutions. It would have been a miracle.

　　【翻譯】

　　主流媒體何以成為主流？

　　我之所以寫關(guān)于媒體的文章，部分原因是我對(duì)所有知識(shí)文化都很感興趣，其中最容易研究的便是媒體。每天我們都可覓得媒體的蹤影。因此你可以做系統(tǒng)的調(diào)查，也可以對(duì)比媒體今天與昨天兩個(gè)版本的差別。媒體夸大渲染了什么，沒夸大什么，以及媒體構(gòu)建事物的方式，都有許多證據(jù)可供查詢。

　　我對(duì)媒體的印象一直是覺得它與學(xué)術(shù)或者，比如說(shuō)，與知識(shí)分子發(fā)表觀點(diǎn)的雜志并沒有什么很大區(qū)別，盡管雜志有一些額外限制。但它們之間相互影響，這也是為什么人們?cè)谶@些領(lǐng)域之間游走自如的原因。你想像科學(xué)家研究某種復(fù)雜的分子一樣去研究媒體。你觀察媒體的內(nèi)部組織結(jié)構(gòu)，然后在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)傳媒產(chǎn)品會(huì)是什么樣子這一問題做出某種假設(shè)。然后你考察傳媒產(chǎn)品，看看情況是否與你的假設(shè)相符。實(shí)際上媒體分析的工作都屬于最后這種——仔細(xì)研究什么是傳媒產(chǎn)品，以及這些產(chǎn)品是否符合那些對(duì)于媒體本質(zhì)和結(jié)構(gòu)的人盡皆知的假設(shè)。

　　那么，你發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么呢？首先，你發(fā)現(xiàn)有不同的媒體在做不同的事情，比如娛樂界或好萊塢、肥皂劇等等，或者甚至國(guó)內(nèi)大多數(shù)（絕大多數(shù)）的報(bào)紙，它們?cè)谝龑?dǎo)大眾。

　　媒體中的另外一部分，即精英媒體，有時(shí)候被稱為設(shè)定議題的媒體，因?yàn)橘Y源豐富，它們?cè)O(shè)定框架讓其他同行在此框架下運(yùn)作，諸如《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》、哥倫比亞廣播公司等。它們的受眾大多是特權(quán)階層。常讀《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的人——富人或有時(shí)被稱為政治階層中的部分人——他們實(shí)際不間斷地參與到政治體系之中。他們基本上是這樣或那樣的管理人員，可能是政治領(lǐng)域的管理者、商界的管理者（如公司的管理層等等）、博士的管理者（如大學(xué)教授），或是那些對(duì)人們思考和看問題方法進(jìn)行規(guī)劃安排的記者。

　　精英媒體為其他媒體設(shè)定運(yùn)作的框架。如果你在觀看美聯(lián)社的新聞，它源源不斷發(fā)布大量的消息，下午三點(diǎn)左右它會(huì)暫停發(fā)布新消息，出來(lái)一條每天都一樣的通告：“各位編輯請(qǐng)注意：明天《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》頭版將發(fā)布以下新聞。”此舉目的是，如果你是俄亥俄州戴頓市某家報(bào)紙的編輯，卻沒有新聞來(lái)源，想不出或是根本就懶得去發(fā)掘新聞，這一通告告訴你有哪些新聞。這些新聞是給你刊登在首頁(yè)四分之一版面上的，你把它留給非本地新聞或娛樂新聞。把它們放在那些版面是因?yàn)椤都~約時(shí)報(bào)》告訴你明天應(yīng)該關(guān)注些什么新聞。如果你是俄亥俄

　　州 戴頓市某家報(bào)紙的編輯，可以說(shuō)你就得那樣做，因?yàn)槟闳狈�資源。如果你不按規(guī)矩來(lái)做，刊登大報(bào)不喜歡的消息，很快你就會(huì)看到后果。事實(shí)上，《圣荷西信使報(bào)》剛剛發(fā)生的事件就是一個(gè)極好的例子。如果你偏離軌道，高壓攻勢(shì)有的是辦法讓你回到正軌上來(lái)。如果你要打破既有模式，則維持不了多久。那種框架運(yùn)行得很好，它只是反映了顯而易見的權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)，可以理解。

　　真正的大眾傳媒基本上都是在娛樂大眾。讓它們?nèi)ジ尚﹦e的，只要不打擾我們（“我們”是指操控一切的人）。比如，讓他們對(duì)職業(yè)體育運(yùn)動(dòng)感興趣吧，讓大家著迷于職業(yè)體育、性丑聞、明星們和他們的問題，諸如此類。任何東西都行，只要不涉及嚴(yán)肅的內(nèi)容。當(dāng)然嚴(yán)肅的事情是大人物該關(guān)注的，由“我們”來(lái)處理吧。

　　設(shè)定議題的精英媒體有哪些呢？比如說(shuō)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》和哥倫比亞廣播公司。首先，它們都是大型的高盈利公司，此外，它們大多或與像通用電氣、西屋電氣這樣更大的公司有聯(lián)系，或完全屬于這些公司。在私有制經(jīng)濟(jì)這一專制體制的權(quán)利構(gòu)架中，它們的地位高高在上。企業(yè)基本上都是專制體制，等級(jí)森嚴(yán)，實(shí)行自上而下的控制體系。如果你不喜歡它們的所作所為，你請(qǐng)自便。主流媒體只是那個(gè)系統(tǒng)的一部分。

　　媒體制度的環(huán)境如何？可以說(shuō)情形基本上都差不多。與它們互動(dòng)的或相關(guān)的都是其他重要的權(quán)力中心——政府、其他公司或者大學(xué)。因?yàn)槊襟w是一個(gè)理論體系，它們與大學(xué)聯(lián)系緊密。假設(shè)你是名記者，要寫一篇關(guān)于東南亞或非洲的報(bào)道，你就應(yīng)該到知名大學(xué)找個(gè)專家來(lái)告訴你寫些什么，或者是去某個(gè)基金會(huì)，比如布魯金絲研究所或美國(guó)企業(yè)研究院，他們會(huì)告訴你該說(shuō)些什么。這些外圍機(jī)構(gòu)與媒體非常類似。

　　例如大學(xué)就不是獨(dú)立的機(jī)構(gòu)。雖然大學(xué)中可能零零散散有一些獨(dú)立的人，但是媒體也是一樣，企業(yè)也差不多。僅就此而言，法西斯國(guó)家亦如此，也會(huì)有獨(dú)立的人。但大學(xué)本身是寄生性的機(jī)構(gòu)，它依賴來(lái)自外部的支持，這些支持諸如私人財(cái)富，提供資助的大公司以及政府（政府與企業(yè)權(quán)力相互聯(lián)系如此之密切，你甚至很難區(qū)分兩者），大學(xué)基本就生存于它們中間。那些置身于大學(xué)之中卻沒有適應(yīng)、不愿意接受并認(rèn)同這個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)的人們（假如你不認(rèn)同它、相信它，你就無(wú)法與之共同發(fā)揮作用），就會(huì)逐步被清除出去，從幼兒園開始一直如此。有許多篩選手段剔除那些令人討厭的、獨(dú)立思考的人。念過(guò)大學(xué)的人就知道教育體制是一個(gè)非常適合鼓勵(lì)循規(guī)蹈矩的體制。如果你不循規(guī)蹈矩，便是惹是生非之人。因此，這種濾網(wǎng)最終留下的人只有那些真正地、誠(chéng)實(shí)地（并非假裝地）認(rèn)同了社會(huì)權(quán)力階層的信念和態(tài)度構(gòu)成的框架。那些頂尖的院校，比如哈佛和普林斯頓，以及那些小型的上流院校，都具有使人社會(huì)化的功能。假如你經(jīng)歷了哈佛這樣的學(xué)校，那里大多數(shù)時(shí)候都是在教規(guī)矩：如何像上流社會(huì)的成員一樣為人處世，如何正確地思考問題等等。

　　好了，你看看整個(gè)體制的結(jié)構(gòu)。你期望新聞是什么樣的呢？結(jié)果顯而易見。我們以《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》為例，它是一家銷售產(chǎn)品的公司，它的產(chǎn)品就是它的受眾。你買他們報(bào)紙時(shí)他們并沒有掙錢。他們也樂于將報(bào)紙放到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上供讀者免費(fèi)閱讀。事實(shí)上，賣報(bào)紙對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)是賠本的。但受眾才是他們真正的產(chǎn)品。他們的產(chǎn)品就是特權(quán)階級(jí)，你知道，就像那些報(bào)紙撰稿人一樣身處社會(huì)頂端做決策的人。你必須向市場(chǎng)賣產(chǎn)品，市場(chǎng)當(dāng)然是指廣告商（即其他行業(yè)）。不管是電視還是報(bào)紙或者任何其他媒體，它們都在賣自己的受眾。這些公司將自己的受眾賣給其他公司。對(duì)于精英媒體而言，這才是大生意。

　　好，你期待會(huì)發(fā)生什么？在這樣的社會(huì)環(huán)境下，你能對(duì)媒體產(chǎn)品的性質(zhì)有些什么預(yù)測(cè)呢？在沒有進(jìn)一步的假定基礎(chǔ)上，會(huì)有什么樣的無(wú)效假設(shè)呢？顯而易見的假設(shè)是：媒體的產(chǎn)品——不管是有形的還是無(wú)形的，其傾向都反映了圍繞在媒體周圍的買家和賣家的利益，即這些機(jī)構(gòu)的利益。若非如此便是奇跡了。

【新世紀(jì)英語(yǔ)四課文翻譯】相關(guān)文章：

fame新世紀(jì)課文翻譯12-20

觀潮課文翻譯06-30

《觀潮》課文翻譯精選08-27

勸學(xué)的課文翻譯10-02

《塞翁失馬》的課文翻譯08-07

《塞翁失馬》課文翻譯06-25

愛蓮說(shuō)課文及翻譯07-13

愛蓮說(shuō)的課文翻譯11-18

愛蓮說(shuō)課文翻譯08-06