评论
打印
The answers to all of these questions, as well as to other questions about the event, depend entirely on the point of view of the journalist. You might think this is an exaggeration, that reporters, irrespective of their assumptions, can at least get the facts straight. But what are "facts"? In A.J.Liebling's book Press, he gives a classic example of the problematic nature of "facts." On the same day, some years ago, both The Wall Street Journal and the now-defunct World Telegram and Sun featured a story about the streets of Moscow. Here is what The Wall Street Journal reporter wrote:
以上这些问题是否报道，完全取决于记者的观点。你可能认为这种说法十分夸张，不管其预想如何，总可以按照事实来报道。但是什么才是“事实”？A·J·李伯龄在其所著《新闻界》一书中对于“事实”的错综复杂性曾提出过一个经典案例。几年前，《华尔街日报》和现已倒闭的《世界电报与太阳报》曾在同一天对莫斯科的街道发表了特写专稿。以下是《华尔街日报》记者对其的报道：
The streets of central Moscow are, as the guidebooks say, clean and neat; so is the famed subway. They are so because of an army of women with brooms, pans, and carts who thus earn their 35 rubles a month in lieu of "relief"; in all Moscow we never saw a mechanical street-sweeper.
莫斯科市中心的街道和著名的地下铁，就如同旅行指南上所说，又干净又整洁。之所以如此是因为有一群妇女每天拿着笤帚簸箕，推着手推车打扫街道，她们每月赚取三十五卢布代替政府救济款；整个莫斯科市，我们没见到任何一辆机械清路机。
Here is what the World Telegram and reporter wrote:
以下是《世界电报与太阳报》的报道：
Four years ago (in Moscow) women by the hundreds swept big city streets. Now you rarely see more than a dozen. The streets are kept clean with giant brushing and sprinkling machines.
四年前整个莫斯科由几百个妇女打扫街道，现今只有十几个妇女在打扫街道了。街道的清洁已由扫路机和喷洒机来完成。
Well, which is it? Can a dozen women look like an army? Are there giant machines cleaning the streets of Moscow or are there not? How can two trained journalists see events so differently? Well, one of them worked for The Wall Street Journal, and when these stories were written, it was the policy of the Journal to highlight the contrast between the primitive Russian economy and the sophisticated American economy. (It still is.) Does this mean the reporter for the Journal was lying? We doubt it. Each of our senses is a remarkably astute censor. We see what we expect to see; often, we focus on what we are paid to see. And those who pay us to see usuay accept their notions not only of what is important but of what are details.
两种报道哪种才是事实？不到十几个妇女看起来像是一群？到底有没有大型清路机打扫街道？两个专业记者的所见所闻怎会相差如此巨大？事实上：《华尔街日报》的记者在写这篇报道时，正逢报社想要强调俄罗斯的初级经济和美国的繁荣经济的对比（到现在这家报社也这样做）。那么这意味着这位记者在说谎吗？未必。我们的每一种感官都是极其敏锐的审查官。我们见到的往往是我们想要看到的东西。我们常常只集中注意力去看付了钱叫我们去看的东西。而且，我们的雇主往往希望我们接受其观点，不仅仅是其所认为的重要事件，还有重要细节。
