题目
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, pure, objective facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism—to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing as “local” news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower floating, in economic pressure, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life. There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense. The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the “facts”. This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And are the bare facts enough? As to the first question, consider how a so-called “factual” story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece. (This is important because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has larger impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three. Thus, in the presentation of a so-called “factual” or “objective” story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved interpretation, in which reporters and editors, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their “news neutralism”, arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news. The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be ultimate goal.) If an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the play he gives a story—promoting it to page one or dragging it to page thirty.1 Why interpretation is the most important assignment confronting American journalism?A Because interpretation tells readers they are reading international news instead of local news.B Because with the help of interpretation readers can have a better understanding of the news.C Because good interpretations can arouse more reaction from readers.D Because without interpretation, local news won’t exist any more.2 Why do some people oppose interpretation of news?A Because they believe interpretation will be too subjective.B Because they are afraid that interpretation will bring danger.C Because they are confined to the facts and can’t see anything else.D Because they say interpretation is a load of nonsense.3 Basically, why does the reporter discard some of the facts?A Because his editor asks him to do so.B Because those facts are not worth writing.C Because the space in the newspaper is limited.D Because he wants to make the reports simple.4 What can we learn about the lead of a piece?A It’s the only part many readers read in the piece.B It should mention all the facts covered in the piece.C It is written by the editor rather than the reporter.D It will prevent readers from further reading.5 What is the author’s attitude toward interpretation of news?A He thinks interpretation of news is absolutely nonsense.B He doubts whether the reporters are capable of making it objective.C He holds that totally objective interpretation can be achieved.D He believes interpretation is as objective as human beings can be.
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, pure, objective facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism—to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing as “local” news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower floating, in economic pressure, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the “facts”. This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And are the bare facts enough?
As to the first question, consider how a so-called “factual” story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece. (This is important because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has larger impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called “factual” or “objective” story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved interpretation, in which reporters and editors, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their “news neutralism”, arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be ultimate goal.) If an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the play he gives a story—promoting it to page one or dragging it to page thirty.
1 Why interpretation is the most important assignment confronting American journalism?
A Because interpretation tells readers they are reading international news instead of local news.
B Because with the help of interpretation readers can have a better understanding of the news.
C Because good interpretations can arouse more reaction from readers.
D Because without interpretation, local news won’t exist any more.
2 Why do some people oppose interpretation of news?
A Because they believe interpretation will be too subjective.
B Because they are afraid that interpretation will bring danger.
C Because they are confined to the facts and can’t see anything else.
D Because they say interpretation is a load of nonsense.
3 Basically, why does the reporter discard some of the facts?
A Because his editor asks him to do so.
B Because those facts are not worth writing.
C Because the space in the newspaper is limited.
D Because he wants to make the reports simple.
4 What can we learn about the lead of a piece?
A It’s the only part many readers read in the piece.
B It should mention all the facts covered in the piece.
C It is written by the editor rather than the reporter.
D It will prevent readers from further reading.
5 What is the author’s attitude toward interpretation of news?
A He thinks interpretation of news is absolutely nonsense.
B He doubts whether the reporters are capable of making it objective.
C He holds that totally objective interpretation can be achieved.
D He believes interpretation is as objective as human beings can be.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the “facts”. This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And are the bare facts enough?
As to the first question, consider how a so-called “factual” story comes about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece. (This is important because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has larger impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called “factual” or “objective” story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved interpretation, in which reporters and editors, calling upon their research resources, their general background, and their “news neutralism”, arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather than subjective processes—as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be ultimate goal.) If an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the play he gives a story—promoting it to page one or dragging it to page thirty.
1 Why interpretation is the most important assignment confronting American journalism?
A Because interpretation tells readers they are reading international news instead of local news.
B Because with the help of interpretation readers can have a better understanding of the news.
C Because good interpretations can arouse more reaction from readers.
D Because without interpretation, local news won’t exist any more.
2 Why do some people oppose interpretation of news?
A Because they believe interpretation will be too subjective.
B Because they are afraid that interpretation will bring danger.
C Because they are confined to the facts and can’t see anything else.
D Because they say interpretation is a load of nonsense.
3 Basically, why does the reporter discard some of the facts?
A Because his editor asks him to do so.
B Because those facts are not worth writing.
C Because the space in the newspaper is limited.
D Because he wants to make the reports simple.
4 What can we learn about the lead of a piece?
A It’s the only part many readers read in the piece.
B It should mention all the facts covered in the piece.
C It is written by the editor rather than the reporter.
D It will prevent readers from further reading.
5 What is the author’s attitude toward interpretation of news?
A He thinks interpretation of news is absolutely nonsense.
B He doubts whether the reporters are capable of making it objective.
C He holds that totally objective interpretation can be achieved.
D He believes interpretation is as objective as human beings can be.
题目解答
答案
1 B
2 A
3 C
4 A
5 D
2 A
3 C
4 A
5 D