GRE作文范文 Issue-1

"The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

The intensity of today's media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. Intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject has turned even minor media events into so-called "media frenzies". Reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pry ever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. With this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected to it will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. Technology has also made it easier to dig further than ever before into a person's past, increasing the possibility that the subject's reputation may be harmed.

The above statement is much too broad, however. "Anyone" covers all people all over the world. There are people whose reputations have only been enhanced by media scrutiny. There are also people whose reputations were already so poor that media scrutiny could not possibly diminish it any further. There may very well be people that have done nothing wrong in the past, at least that can be discovered by the media, whose reputations could not be diminished by media scrutiny. To broadly state that "anyone" subjected to media coverage will have his or her status sullied implies that everyone's reputation worldwide is susceptible to damage under any type of media scrutiny. What about children, particularly newborn children? What about those people whose past is entirely unknown?

Another problem with such a broad statement is that it does not define the particular level of media scrutiny. Certainly there are different levels of media coverage. Does merely the mention of one's name in a newspaper constitute media scrutiny? What about the coverage of a single event in someone's life, for example a wedding or the birth of a baby? Is the media coverage of the heroic death of a firefighter or police officer in the line of duty ever going to diminish that person's reputation? It seems highly unlikely that in these examples, although these people may have been subjected to media scrutiny, these individual's reputations are undamaged and potentially enhanced by such exposure.

Without a doubt, there are many examples of individual's whose reputations have been diminished by media scrutiny. The media's uncovering of former U.S. President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky will most likely overshadow the entire eight years of his administration. Basketball superstar Michael Jordan's sterling reputation has been tarnished more than once by the media; first by media coverage of his gambling habits, then most recently (and in a much more harmful manner) by news reports of his marital infidelities and the divorce from his wife of thirteen years. Fame and fortune can turn an ordinary individual into a media target where reporters will stop at almost nothing to "dig up dirt" that will sell more newspapers or entice more viewers to watch a television program. It could even be argued that media scrutiny killed Princess Diana as her car sped away from the privacy-invading cameras of reporters in Paris. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people who have been hurt in one way or another by particularly intense media scrutiny.

In summary, it seems impossible that for every person that is subjected to media scrutiny, his or her reputation will eventually be diminished. Millions of people are mentioned in the media every day yet still manage to go about their lives unhurt by the media. Normal individuals that are subjected to media scrutiny can have their reputation either enhanced or damaged depending on the circumstances surrounding the media coverage. The likelihood of a diminished reputation from the media rises proportionally with the level of notoriety that an individual possesses and the outrageousness of that person's behavior. The length of time in the spotlight can also be a determining factor, as the longer the person is examined in the media, the greater the possibility that damaging information will be discovered or that the individual will do something to disparage his or her reputation. But to broadly state that media scrutiny will diminish anyone's reputation is to overstate the distinct possibility that, given a long enough time and a certain level of intensity of coverage, the media may damage a person's reputation.

(766words)

參考譯文

"被置于媒體審視下的任何人，其名譽(yù)終將受毀損。"

當(dāng)今媒體報(bào)道的力度，由于當(dāng)今時(shí)代所能獲得的媒體渠道那前所未有的數(shù)量和種類，從而被極大地增強(qiáng)。圍繞著對(duì)最具暴露性的圖片及對(duì)某一題材最新信息所展開的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，使哪怕是次要的媒體事件也轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樗^的"媒體瘋狂"。由于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的本質(zhì)，記者們被迫就某一項(xiàng)報(bào)道作深度采訪，以其窺探到一個(gè)任何其他人都無法揭示的視角。隨著這類媒體報(bào)道的出現(xiàn)，任何被置于媒體報(bào)道之下的人，其名譽(yù)越來越有可能被玷污，因?yàn)?quot;金無赤金，人無完人"。每個(gè)人都有可能犯錯(cuò)誤。技術(shù)進(jìn)步使大量的信息在第一瞬間便被輕易獲取。技術(shù)也使媒體得以比以往任何時(shí)候更深入地去挖掘一個(gè)人的過去，從而更增加了當(dāng)事人名譽(yù)受損的可能性。

然則，上述陳述涵蓋面過于寬泛。"任何人"涵蓋了世界上所有的人。有些人的名譽(yù)反而會(huì)因?yàn)槊襟w的聚焦而陡然顯赫起來。也有些人，其名聲早就如此之糟糕，以致于媒體的聚焦再也無法讓它受到更壞的毀損?；\統(tǒng)地陳述受媒體報(bào)道的"任何人"均會(huì)使其地位被玷污，這暗示著全球每個(gè)人的名聲在任何種類的媒體聚焦下均易于遭詬病。那么，對(duì)于天真無辜的孩子們，尤其新生嬰兒，情況會(huì)如何?對(duì)于那些其過去根本無人知曉的人來說，情況又會(huì)是什么樣呢?

對(duì)于這樣一項(xiàng)籠統(tǒng)的陳述而言，它的另一個(gè)問題是沒能明晰界定媒體聚焦的具體程度。媒體的報(bào)道毫無疑問存在程度上的差別。只在報(bào)紙上提及一個(gè)人的名字，是否算作媒體聚焦?對(duì)某人一生中單獨(dú)一次事件(如婚禮或孩子出生)的報(bào)道這也算媒介聚焦嗎?媒體對(duì)消防隊(duì)員或警官因公而死的英雄壯舉進(jìn)行報(bào)道，難道也會(huì)毀損該人的名聲嗎?在這些實(shí)例中，其名聲受損的事情極不可能發(fā)生。雖然這些人可能被置于媒體審視之下，但其名聲卻會(huì)完好無損，且潛在地可因這些披露而得以提高。 毫無疑問，也有許多例子能證明一個(gè)人的名聲會(huì)被媒體審視所毀損。媒體對(duì)美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)Bill Clinton與Monica Lewinsky的風(fēng)流韻事的揭露極有可能會(huì)將其八年的執(zhí)政生涯置于陰影之中。超級(jí)籃球明星Michael Jordan一世英名也被媒體不止一次地玷污，首先是被有關(guān)其賭習(xí)的媒體報(bào)道，其次是最近--且以一種更具致命性傷害的方式--被有關(guān)他婚姻不忠以及與其結(jié)婚13年的妻子分道揚(yáng)鑣的報(bào)道。當(dāng)媒體記者不擇手段去挖掘某些可促使其報(bào)紙銷量大增的"猛料"時(shí)，或去誘惑更多的觀眾觀看某一電視節(jié)目時(shí)，名和利就會(huì)將一個(gè)普通人轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槊襟w追蹤的目標(biāo)。我們甚至可以提出這樣一種論點(diǎn)，即正是媒體的審視將Diana王妃置于死地，隨著她的汽車去竭力逃脫巴黎街頭的記者們那侵犯隱私的相機(jī)鏡頭。毫無疑問，肯定有許多人被極其強(qiáng)烈的媒體聚焦以一種方式或另一種方式所傷害。

歸納而言，對(duì)于每個(gè)被置于媒體審視的人來說，其名聲將最終受到毀損似乎并不可能。每天，有數(shù)百萬人被媒體提到，但他們?nèi)栽O(shè)法我行我素，不為媒體所傷害。被置于媒體審視之下的普通人，其名聲或可得到提高，或可蒙受毀損，取決于圍繞著媒體報(bào)道的具體情況。一個(gè)人的名聲受媒體毀損的可能性，與所其擁有的臭名昭著的程度，及其行為的令人厭惡程度成正比。受媒體關(guān)注的時(shí)間長(zhǎng)短同樣也是一個(gè)決定性因素，因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)人被媒體審視的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng)，于他名聲不利的信息越有可能被抖落出來，或者該人越有可能去做出某些于其名聲不利的事情。但只是籠統(tǒng)地陳述媒體的審視終將毀掉一個(gè)人的名聲，即是過分夸大這樣一種顯著的可能性，即在足夠長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間和一度程度的報(bào)道力度這兩個(gè)條件下，媒體是有可能毀掉一個(gè)人的名聲的。