學券計劃 孩子與音樂 電子書
報紙的消亡 環(huán)境保護 帶薪請假制度
英語的消亡
In future, as newspaper fade and change, will politicians therefore burgle their opponents' offices with impunity, and corporate villains whoop as they trample over their victims？Journalism schools and think-tanks, especially in America, are worried about the effect of a crumbling Fourth Estate. Are today's news organizations up to the task of sustaining the informed citizenry on which democracy depends asked a recent report about newspapers from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a charitable research foundation.
Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.
That is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances. Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal should be able to put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet——especially as they cater to a more global readership. As with many industries, it is those in the middle——neither highbrow, nor entertainingly populist——that are likeliest to fall by the wayside.
The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account——trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.
In addition, a new force of citizen journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings——of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.
For hard-news reporting——as opposed to comment——the result of net journalism have admittedly been limited. Most bloggers operate from their armchairs, not the frontline, and citizen journalist tend to stick to local matters. But it is still early days. New online models will spring up as papers retreat. One non-profit group, New Assignment.Net, plans to combine the work of amateurs and professionals to produce investigative stories on the internet. Aptly, $10,000 of cash for the project has come from Craig Newmark, of Craigslist, a group of free classified-advertisement websites that has probably done more than anything to destroy newspapers' income.
In future, argues Carnegie, some high-quality journalism will also be backed by non-profit organizations. Already, a few respected news organizations sustain themselves that way——including the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio. An elite group of serious newspapers available everywhere online, independent journalism backed by charities, thousands of fired-up bloggers and well-informed citizen journalists： there is every sign that Arthur Miller's national conversation will be louder than ever.
將來，隨著報紙的消失和變化，政客們會撬竊對手的辦公室而不受懲罰嗎？公司惡棍會歡呼著踐踏受害者的權(quán)益嗎？尤其是在美國，各個新聞學院和智囊機構(gòu)對報業(yè)新聞消亡帶來的后果憂心忡忡。慈善研究機構(gòu)紐約Carnegie Corporation 最近一份關(guān)于報紙的報告質(zhì)問：如今的新聞機構(gòu)“是否能夠完成向作為民主制度基石的公民提供全面信息的任務(wù)？”
誰也不應(yīng)該對曾經(jīng)偉大的報紙的消亡感到高興。但是，報紙的衰落并不會像一些人所擔心的那樣對社會造成極大的危害。不要忘記，20世紀50年代以來民主制度已經(jīng)經(jīng)受了報紙銷量因電視出現(xiàn)而大幅下滑的考驗。當讀者避開報紙，報紙避開了在保守時代被認為是嚴肅新聞的東西時，民主仍然存活下來。那么它也一定能經(jīng)受住即將到來的報紙的衰落。
部分原因是，少數(shù)花本錢做那種通常給社會帶來益處的調(diào)查性新聞報道的大報，只要其所有者能夠很好地適應(yīng)變化的環(huán)境，就不用擔心生存問題。像《紐約時報》，《華爾街日報》這樣的出版物，應(yīng)該能夠提高報紙的價格，以彌補廣告業(yè)務(wù)流向網(wǎng)絡(luò)造成的收入損失——尤其是當讀者更具全球性時。像許多行業(yè)一樣，那些處于中間地位的報紙——既沒有很高的文化品位，又沒有娛樂性的大眾口味——最容易被淘汰。
報紙的作用遠遠超出了調(diào)查舞弊，甚至傳播消息，其作用在于監(jiān)督政府承擔責任——在公共輿論的法庭中審判他們。網(wǎng)絡(luò)擴大了這個法庭。任何尋找信息的人從來沒有像現(xiàn)在這樣方便。人們不必再相信少數(shù)幾個全國性大報紙，或者更糟糕的是，他們本地的城市報紙。像“谷歌新聞”這樣的專門的新聞網(wǎng)站收集了世界各地的新聞來源。英國《衛(wèi)報》網(wǎng)站在美國的讀者幾乎是在英國本土的一半。
另外，公民“記者”和博客組成的新力量正躍躍欲試地要監(jiān)督政治家負起責任。網(wǎng)絡(luò)為任何一個有鍵盤和網(wǎng)絡(luò)連接的人打開了職業(yè)編輯和新聞記者的封閉世界。有些公司已受到業(yè)余愛好者的發(fā)帖指責，這些帖子指控戴爾手提電腦會著火，或者指控有線電視維修員在沙發(fā)上睡大覺。每個博客都有可能抱有偏見和說些誹謗性的話，但是作為整體，博客們?yōu)閷ふ艺嫦嗟娜藗兲峁┝舜罅恐档米屑氉聊サ牟牧?。當然，網(wǎng)絡(luò)會迎合閉塞僵死的思想，但是更多報紙也是如此。
就與評論相比的硬新聞而言，網(wǎng)絡(luò)新聞的成效顯然有限。多數(shù)博客是在自己的椅子上寫作，而不是在新聞前線，而且公民記者傾向于只關(guān)注本地事件。但它仍然處于初期階段。隨著報紙的退卻，新的在線模式將迅速涌現(xiàn)。一個非贏利網(wǎng)絡(luò)團體“新聞工作網(wǎng)”計劃把業(yè)余記者和專業(yè)記者聯(lián)合起來，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上推出調(diào)查性新聞報道?？死赘裥侣劷M(一個免費分類廣告網(wǎng)站集團)的創(chuàng)辦人克雷格紐馬克給“新聞工作網(wǎng)”及時地捐贈了一萬美金。該網(wǎng)站集團作得最多的可能就是損害報紙的收入。
卡內(nèi)基認為，將來一些高質(zhì)量的新聞也會得到非贏利機構(gòu)的支持。幾家有影響的新聞機構(gòu)已經(jīng)靠此方式生存，包括《衛(wèi)報》，《基督教科學箴言報》和美國國家公共電臺。一些嚴肅的精英報紙都有網(wǎng)絡(luò)版，世界各地都可以閱讀，獨立的新聞報道得到慈善機構(gòu)、成千上萬的熱心博客和消息靈通的公民記者的支持。這一切完全表明，阿瑟米勒的全國性交談會比以前聲音更響。
報紙的消亡 環(huán)境保護 帶薪請假制度
英語的消亡
In future, as newspaper fade and change, will politicians therefore burgle their opponents' offices with impunity, and corporate villains whoop as they trample over their victims？Journalism schools and think-tanks, especially in America, are worried about the effect of a crumbling Fourth Estate. Are today's news organizations up to the task of sustaining the informed citizenry on which democracy depends asked a recent report about newspapers from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a charitable research foundation.
Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.
That is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances. Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal should be able to put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet——especially as they cater to a more global readership. As with many industries, it is those in the middle——neither highbrow, nor entertainingly populist——that are likeliest to fall by the wayside.
The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account——trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.
In addition, a new force of citizen journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings——of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.
For hard-news reporting——as opposed to comment——the result of net journalism have admittedly been limited. Most bloggers operate from their armchairs, not the frontline, and citizen journalist tend to stick to local matters. But it is still early days. New online models will spring up as papers retreat. One non-profit group, New Assignment.Net, plans to combine the work of amateurs and professionals to produce investigative stories on the internet. Aptly, $10,000 of cash for the project has come from Craig Newmark, of Craigslist, a group of free classified-advertisement websites that has probably done more than anything to destroy newspapers' income.
In future, argues Carnegie, some high-quality journalism will also be backed by non-profit organizations. Already, a few respected news organizations sustain themselves that way——including the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio. An elite group of serious newspapers available everywhere online, independent journalism backed by charities, thousands of fired-up bloggers and well-informed citizen journalists： there is every sign that Arthur Miller's national conversation will be louder than ever.
將來，隨著報紙的消失和變化，政客們會撬竊對手的辦公室而不受懲罰嗎？公司惡棍會歡呼著踐踏受害者的權(quán)益嗎？尤其是在美國，各個新聞學院和智囊機構(gòu)對報業(yè)新聞消亡帶來的后果憂心忡忡。慈善研究機構(gòu)紐約Carnegie Corporation 最近一份關(guān)于報紙的報告質(zhì)問：如今的新聞機構(gòu)“是否能夠完成向作為民主制度基石的公民提供全面信息的任務(wù)？”
誰也不應(yīng)該對曾經(jīng)偉大的報紙的消亡感到高興。但是，報紙的衰落并不會像一些人所擔心的那樣對社會造成極大的危害。不要忘記，20世紀50年代以來民主制度已經(jīng)經(jīng)受了報紙銷量因電視出現(xiàn)而大幅下滑的考驗。當讀者避開報紙，報紙避開了在保守時代被認為是嚴肅新聞的東西時，民主仍然存活下來。那么它也一定能經(jīng)受住即將到來的報紙的衰落。
部分原因是，少數(shù)花本錢做那種通常給社會帶來益處的調(diào)查性新聞報道的大報，只要其所有者能夠很好地適應(yīng)變化的環(huán)境，就不用擔心生存問題。像《紐約時報》，《華爾街日報》這樣的出版物，應(yīng)該能夠提高報紙的價格，以彌補廣告業(yè)務(wù)流向網(wǎng)絡(luò)造成的收入損失——尤其是當讀者更具全球性時。像許多行業(yè)一樣，那些處于中間地位的報紙——既沒有很高的文化品位，又沒有娛樂性的大眾口味——最容易被淘汰。
報紙的作用遠遠超出了調(diào)查舞弊，甚至傳播消息，其作用在于監(jiān)督政府承擔責任——在公共輿論的法庭中審判他們。網(wǎng)絡(luò)擴大了這個法庭。任何尋找信息的人從來沒有像現(xiàn)在這樣方便。人們不必再相信少數(shù)幾個全國性大報紙，或者更糟糕的是，他們本地的城市報紙。像“谷歌新聞”這樣的專門的新聞網(wǎng)站收集了世界各地的新聞來源。英國《衛(wèi)報》網(wǎng)站在美國的讀者幾乎是在英國本土的一半。
另外，公民“記者”和博客組成的新力量正躍躍欲試地要監(jiān)督政治家負起責任。網(wǎng)絡(luò)為任何一個有鍵盤和網(wǎng)絡(luò)連接的人打開了職業(yè)編輯和新聞記者的封閉世界。有些公司已受到業(yè)余愛好者的發(fā)帖指責，這些帖子指控戴爾手提電腦會著火，或者指控有線電視維修員在沙發(fā)上睡大覺。每個博客都有可能抱有偏見和說些誹謗性的話，但是作為整體，博客們?yōu)閷ふ艺嫦嗟娜藗兲峁┝舜罅恐档米屑氉聊サ牟牧?。當然，網(wǎng)絡(luò)會迎合閉塞僵死的思想，但是更多報紙也是如此。
就與評論相比的硬新聞而言，網(wǎng)絡(luò)新聞的成效顯然有限。多數(shù)博客是在自己的椅子上寫作，而不是在新聞前線，而且公民記者傾向于只關(guān)注本地事件。但它仍然處于初期階段。隨著報紙的退卻，新的在線模式將迅速涌現(xiàn)。一個非贏利網(wǎng)絡(luò)團體“新聞工作網(wǎng)”計劃把業(yè)余記者和專業(yè)記者聯(lián)合起來，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上推出調(diào)查性新聞報道?？死赘裥侣劷M(一個免費分類廣告網(wǎng)站集團)的創(chuàng)辦人克雷格紐馬克給“新聞工作網(wǎng)”及時地捐贈了一萬美金。該網(wǎng)站集團作得最多的可能就是損害報紙的收入。
卡內(nèi)基認為，將來一些高質(zhì)量的新聞也會得到非贏利機構(gòu)的支持。幾家有影響的新聞機構(gòu)已經(jīng)靠此方式生存，包括《衛(wèi)報》，《基督教科學箴言報》和美國國家公共電臺。一些嚴肅的精英報紙都有網(wǎng)絡(luò)版，世界各地都可以閱讀，獨立的新聞報道得到慈善機構(gòu)、成千上萬的熱心博客和消息靈通的公民記者的支持。這一切完全表明，阿瑟米勒的全國性交談會比以前聲音更響。