当今任何社会已经不再可能将任何在世的人标榜为英雄人物。
Agree
1. In order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand—scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to diminish their reputation.
2. Intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in public's collective mind, that their hero is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed.
Begin: 承认当今的媒体关注的范围越来越大，很多私人的事情也被曝光，但是我们必须承认真正的英雄不管媒体如何报道，都还是会赢得人们尊重的。
1. 当今的媒体铺天盖地，如今的hero很少有自己的隐私，的确有因为报道而名声扫地的"hero"。When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy. MIT副教授卢克·范·帕里耶斯（LukVanParijs）编造、修改科研数据以及杜撰合作者姓名，最终被发现报道，并被校方开除。可以说，媒体在监督英雄方面的确起到了积极的作用。
Luk Van Parijs, a former associate professor of biology at MIT, once was considered as a rising star in the fields of immunology and RNA interference. However, this high-flying researcher has been fired from MIT for fabricating data in a published scientific paper, in unpublished manuscripts, and in grant applications, which was dicovered by the media,
2. 真正的英雄(Turning back to the real hero)，不管媒体怎样窥视他们私人生活 pry about ，他们还是一样受人们尊重。一方面真正出色的人，在私人时间，也是非常常规的生活——看书，休息，运动——让媒体没有可乘之机，做事保持很高的道德水准。另一方面是他们的出色成就让他们的所谓的错误行为那么微不足道，比如罗斯福，他也有EX- marital scandal ，但是这些行为比起他的成就——走出大萧条，领导二战取得胜利，他是公认的20世纪最伟大的总统，人们及使知道丑闻，但是仍然和以前一样尊敬他。所以真正的英雄，仍然有很高的声誉，不管媒体怎样报道。
3. 再者，媒体并没有阻碍甚至抹杀英雄的存在，在当代也有很多的英雄。首先，在当今技术飞速发展的时代，人们比过去更渴望英雄，我们的经验告诉我们，媒体时代不光没有消灭英雄，而且更多的英雄层出不穷after the incredible tragedy that happened in the September 11, 2001, thousand of firefighters and policeman work in the World Trade Center for the sake of saving most victims. 过去只有做了很大贡献的人才会得到宣传，但如今一个见义勇为的抓小偷的都马上被宣传了。此外，因为媒体的不受约束，它可以揭露罪恶，对抗恶势力，让真正的英雄得以暴露出来。
End：In sum, to broadly state that media scrutiny will diminish anyone's reputation exaggerates the negative factor of the media; we should not lose our sight on the fact that media could also serve to create heroes。Moreover，真正伟大的人，也是不会受此影响的。
范文：
In general, I agree with the assertion that intense media scrutiny nearly always serves to diminish the reputation of society's would-be heroes, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures whether heroic or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called heroes have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by the media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered, the reputation of any public figure, hero or otherwise, is forever tarnished.
The chief reason why I generally agree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially heroic public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One need look no further than the newsstand, local television news broadcast, or talk show to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus in order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to diminish their reputation.
A second reason why I fundamentally agree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their hero is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgment about a public figure--heroic or otherwise.
A third reason for my agreement with the statement has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person's reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet in my observation these are exceptional cases; besides, a damage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen hero is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.
In sum, the statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish, and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching heroes being knocked off their pedestals.
Orignal From: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero
没有评论:
发表评论