GRE考试Issue写作范文详解(8).

　　Issue

　　"In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benit."

　　Sample Essay

　　Anything that makes a country&aposs government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

　　One example of the possible negative fects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation&aposs attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the fect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

　　On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

　　One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don&apost see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

　　Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

　　Society can certainly benit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

　　( 694 words)

　　[题目]

　　"在许多国家，人们现在可以打开电视，便可以看到政府是如何运作的。观看到这样一些程序能够帮助人们理解那些影响到其生活的问题。电视转播政府程序——审判，辩论，会议等不一而足——的种类越多，则社会将会获益更多。"

　　[范文正文]

　　任何能使一个国家的政府更透明的事情无疑总是一件好事情，至少在民主国家中是如此。这些社会通过得以看到他们所选举的政府官员在做些什么而获益匪浅。但是，如果只是笼统地说政府程序转播得越多，社会就会获益更多，那么，这便忽视了这样一个事实，即有些时候，转播得越少越好。有些类型的程序如果进行转播，则甚至会受到负面影响，使社会处于更糟糕的境地，而不是带来任何裨益。有些类型的政府程序应获得更多的电视报道，但有些应该减少报道，以确保这些程序能恰当地进行。

　　转播所有政府程序会引发负面作用，这方面的例子是美国对所指控的谋杀者和前美式足球全国联赛超级明星O.J.辛普逊的审判。审判全程转播，成为媒体一大焦点，在整个审判进程中吸引了全国的注意力。律师们清楚地知道，整个审判程序被转播，他们的所作所为几乎像电影演戏那样。媒体的焦光灯如此穷追不舍，以致于那种马戏团般的氛围甚至波及到主审法官。电视镜头的存在以及密集的媒体报道效果致使这场审判史无前例，严重影响到这次审判的正常进程。参与者在镜头面前装腔作势，根本不专注于手头应做的工作。许多人会认为，很大程度上由于电视的缘故，在这场特定的审判中，正义并未得到申张。

　　另一方面，有关政府日常实际工作的电视转播能让人们直接地深入了解政府实际上是怎样运转的。由于电视镜头每天都在那里，政府官员们便变得习以为常，不再会因为它们的存在而受太大的影响。这样，社会就能获益，因为民众能够亲眼目睹实际所在发生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那样藏匿在一层秘密的面纱背后，从而使人无从知晓所被选举的官员的神秘行为。

　　被电视转播的政府程序越多，一个社会就会变得更好，此番陈述的问题之一是，人们可能会以为他们能目睹一切，但在实际上，电视镜头所捕捉到的可能只是所有发生的事情的一部分，无论有多少电视镜头。政府内发生的相当一部分事情是在"幕后"完成的，并不必定是在开会场所众目睽睽之下进行的。尽管在某种程度上"眼见为实"，但在相当多的时候，不为你所见的事情才起着决定性的作用。纯粹去电视转播政府的各项程序，当然能增进理解，但要充分理解某一过程，则人们须实际上积极地参与到这一过程中来。

　　政府程序电视转播越多越好，这一陈述的另一个问题是，这一陈述认为当政府程序被转播时，人们实际上正观看着这些程序。美国有一个电视频道，每天播放国会程序，但看这一频道的人寥寥无几。只有当某些重大问题需要进行辨论或进行投票时，才会有大量的人观看这一频道。纯粹电视播放政府程序并不会影响到社会，除非社会观看这些事件。

　　社会无疑能得益于电视对某些政府程序的报道。亲眼目睹民选官员处理政府事务，能带来一个额外的理解因素，来弄清政府的内在运转机制。当政治家们被置于电视镜头的"注视"时，可以使其对其行为负责。他们在处理公众事务时再也无法隐名埋姓。但政府程序并非应该全部进行电视转播。有些时候，为了确保能作出正确的决策，隐秘应成为一种绝对的要求。

　　Issue

　　"In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benit."

　　Sample Essay

　　Anything that makes a country&aposs government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

　　One example of the possible negative fects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation&aposs attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the fect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

　　On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

　　One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don&apost see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

　　Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

　　Society can certainly benit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

　　( 694 words)

上12下

共2页