新世纪英语四课文翻译

　　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.

　　【翻译】

　　主流媒体何以成为主流？

　　我之所以写关于媒体的文章，部分原因是我对所有知识文化都很感兴趣，其中最容易研究的便是媒体。每天我们都可觅得媒体的踪影。因此你可以做系统的调查，也可以对比媒体今天与昨天两个版本的差别。媒体夸大渲染了什么，没夸大什么，以及媒体构建事物的方式，都有许多证据可供查询。

　　我对媒体的印象一直是觉得它与学术或者，比如说，与知识分子发表观点的杂志并没有什么很大区别，尽管杂志有一些额外限制。但它们之间相互影响，这也是为什么人们在这些领域之间游走自如的原因。你想像科学家研究某种复杂的分子一样去研究媒体。你观察媒体的内部组织结构，然后在此基础上对传媒产品会是什么样子这一问题做出某种假设。然后你考察传媒产品，看看情况是否与你的假设相符。实际上媒体分析的工作都属于最后这种——仔细研究什么是传媒产品，以及这些产品是否符合那些对于媒体本质和结构的人尽皆知的假设。

　　那么，你发现了什么呢？首先，你发现有不同的媒体在做不同的事情，比如娱乐界或好莱坞、肥皂剧等等，或者甚至国内大多数（绝大多数）的报纸，它们在引导大众。

　　媒体中的另外一部分，即精英媒体，有时候被称为设定议题的媒体，因为资源丰富，它们设定框架让其他同行在此框架下运作，诸如《纽约时报》、哥伦比亚广播公司等。它们的受众大多是特权阶层。常读《纽约时报》的人——富人或有时被称为政治阶层中的部分人——他们实际不间断地参与到政治体系之中。他们基本上是这样或那样的管理人员，可能是政治领域的管理者、商界的管理者（如公司的管理层等等）、博士的管理者（如大学教授），或是那些对人们思考和看问题方法进行规划安排的记者。

　　精英媒体为其他媒体设定运作的框架。如果你在观看美联社的新闻，它源源不断发布大量的消息，下午三点左右它会暂停发布新消息，出来一条每天都一样的通告：“各位编辑请注意：明天《纽约时报》头版将发布以下新闻。”此举目的是，如果你是俄亥俄州戴顿市某家报纸的编辑，却没有新闻来源，想不出或是根本就懒得去发掘新闻，这一通告告诉你有哪些新闻。这些新闻是给你刊登在首页四分之一版面上的，你把它留给非本地新闻或娱乐新闻。把它们放在那些版面是因为《纽约时报》告诉你明天应该关注些什么新闻。如果你是俄亥俄

　　州 戴顿市某家报纸的编辑，可以说你就得那样做，因为你缺乏资源。如果你不按规矩来做，刊登大报不喜欢的消息，很快你就会看到后果。事实上，《圣荷西信使报》刚刚发生的事件就是一个极好的例子。如果你偏离轨道，高压攻势有的是办法让你回到正轨上来。如果你要打破既有模式，则维持不了多久。那种框架运行得很好，它只是反映了显而易见的权力结构，可以理解。

　　真正的大众传媒基本上都是在娱乐大众。让它们去干些别的，只要不打扰我们（“我们”是指操控一切的人）。比如，让他们对职业体育运动感兴趣吧，让大家着迷于职业体育、性丑闻、明星们和他们的问题，诸如此类。任何东西都行，只要不涉及严肃的内容。当然严肃的事情是大人物该关注的，由“我们”来处理吧。

　　设定议题的精英媒体有哪些呢？比如说《纽约时报》和哥伦比亚广播公司。首先，它们都是大型的高盈利公司，此外，它们大多或与像通用电气、西屋电气这样更大的公司有联系，或完全属于这些公司。在私有制经济这一专制体制的权利构架中，它们的地位高高在上。企业基本上都是专制体制，等级森严，实行自上而下的控制体系。如果你不喜欢它们的所作所为，你请自便。主流媒体只是那个系统的一部分。

　　媒体制度的环境如何？可以说情形基本上都差不多。与它们互动的或相关的都是其他重要的权力中心——政府、其他公司或者大学。因为媒体是一个理论体系，它们与大学联系紧密。假设你是名记者，要写一篇关于东南亚或非洲的报道，你就应该到知名大学找个专家来告诉你写些什么，或者是去某个基金会，比如布鲁金丝研究所或美国企业研究院，他们会告诉你该说些什么。这些外围机构与媒体非常类似。

　　例如大学就不是独立的机构。虽然大学中可能零零散散有一些独立的人，但是媒体也是一样，企业也差不多。仅就此而言，法西斯国家亦如此，也会有独立的人。但大学本身是寄生性的.机构，它依赖来自外部的支持，这些支持诸如私人财富，提供资助的大公司以及政府（政府与企业权力相互联系如此之密切，你甚至很难区分两者），大学基本就生存于它们中间。那些置身于大学之中却没有适应、不愿意接受并认同这个结构的人们（假如你不认同它、相信它，你就无法与之共同发挥作用），就会逐步被清除出去，从幼儿园开始一直如此。有许多筛选手段剔除那些令人讨厌的、独立思考的人。念过大学的人就知道教育体制是一个非常适合鼓励循规蹈矩的体制。如果你不循规蹈矩，便是惹是生非之人。因此，这种滤网最终留下的人只有那些真正地、诚实地（并非假装地）认同了社会权力阶层的信念和态度构成的框架。那些顶尖的院校，比如哈佛和普林斯顿，以及那些小型的上流院校，都具有使人社会化的功能。假如你经历了哈佛这样的学校，那里大多数时候都是在教规矩：如何像上流社会的成员一样为人处世，如何正确地思考问题等等。

　　好了，你看看整个体制的结构。你期望新闻是什么样的呢？结果显而易见。我们以《纽约时报》为例，它是一家销售产品的公司，它的产品就是它的受众。你买他们报纸时他们并没有挣钱。他们也乐于将报纸放到互联网上供读者免费阅读。事实上，卖报纸对他们来说是赔本的。但受众才是他们真正的产品。他们的产品就是特权阶级，你知道，就像那些报纸撰稿人一样身处社会顶端做决策的人。你必须向市场卖产品，市场当然是指广告商（即其他行业）。不管是电视还是报纸或者任何其他媒体，它们都在卖自己的受众。这些公司将自己的受众卖给其他公司。对于精英媒体而言，这才是大生意。