Alisa Miller共享新闻的新闻

=========================
http://dotsub.com/view/58c5e4b0-0f16-44ad-bb8b-8cd162f39e6b
Alisa Miller共享关于新闻的新闻
新闻是怎样塑造我们认识世界的方式呢？ 先看一张世界地图 再看看如果按新闻报道数量划分，美国人看到的“世界图景”: 在这张地图中, 各个国家的比例是按照 美国新闻机构报道世界各国新闻的秒数来划分的 时间是2007年2月，也就是仅仅一年前 那个月发生的新闻包括：朝鲜同意拆除核设施 印度尼西亚大海啸 联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会在巴黎全会上证实了人类活动与全球变暖的关系 全部新闻中，美国新闻占79% 除去美国，看看其余的21%构成的“地图” 其中大多新闻是有关伊拉克的，就是图中的大块绿色，其他国家占的很少 俄罗斯、中国和印度的新闻仅仅占1%
如果再分析一下这些新闻，然后仅仅排除掉一类新闻 世界看上去是这样的 那个新闻是什么呢？Anna Nicole Smith之死 [译注：Smith为《花花公子》玩伴女郎，07年2月离奇猝死] 从新闻报道数量上看，除了没有超过伊拉克，Anna Nicole Smith之死超过各个国家 而且是报道IPCC报告数量的10倍 这种情况还在继续 大家都知道布兰妮最近很流行
为什么我们听到的世界新闻很少？ 原因之一是新闻机构已经将他们的国外通讯分社数量减少了一半 除了美国广播公司在内罗毕、新德里和孟买的单人微型分社 非洲、印度和南美洲都没有新的通讯社网络 而这些地方的人口有超过20亿
现实情况是报道布兰妮成本更低 而如果看看人们获取新闻的方式 全球新闻报道量的缺失情况就更让人担心了 人们大多通过本地电视获取新闻 而不幸的是本地电视新闻中只有12%是国际新闻
那互联网呢？ 最流行的网站也不见得做的更好 去年，皮尤研究中心和哥伦比亚新闻学院分析发现 Google新闻首页上的14000个报道 其实只是在重复24个新闻 同样，一份有关互联网内容的研究表明 美国新闻机构报道的世界新闻都是在重复美联社和路透社的报道 而且还试图隐藏转载的痕迹，让描述语气不至于让人看出来
所以，想到所有这些，就能理解为什么比起20年前的同辈们 现在的大学毕业生，还包括一些教育程度较低的美国人 反而对世界了解的更少 如果认为大家只是对世界新闻不感兴趣 那就错了 近几年来，表明正一直密切关注世界新闻的美国人数比例已上升至50% 近几年，表明正一直密切关注世界新闻的美国人数比例已上升至50%
真正的问题是：在世界愈发互联的今天，这样歪曲的世界图景是我们美国人想要的吗？ 真正的问题是：在世界愈发互联的今天，这样歪曲的世界图景是我们美国人想要的吗？ 我相信我们能做得更好 否则，后果我们能承担么？ 谢谢大家！！

---------------------
Alisa Miller shares the news about the news
How does the news shape the way we see the world? Here's the world based on the way it looks -- based on land mass. And here's how news shapes what Americans see. This map -- (Applause) -- this map shows the number of seconds that American network and cable news organizations dedicated to news stories, by country, in February of 2007 -- just one year ago. Now, this was a month when North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear facilities. There was massive flooding in Indonesia. And in Paris, the IPCC released its study confirming man's impact on global warming. The U.S. accounted for 79 percent of total news coverage. And when we take out the U.S. and look at the remaining 21 percent, we see a lot of Iraq -- that's that big green thing there -- and little else. The combined coverage of Russia, China and India, for example, reached just one percent.

When we analyzed all the news stories and removed just one story, here's how the world looked. What was that story? The death of Anna Nicole Smith. This story eclipsed every country except Iraq, and received 10 times the coverage of the IPCC report. And the cycle continues; as we all know, Britney has loomed pretty large lately.

So why don't we hear more about the world? One reason is that news networks have reduced the number of their foreign bureaus by half. Aside from one-person ABC mini-bureaus in Nairobi, New Delhi and Mumbai, there are no network news bureaus in all of Africa, India or South America -- places that are home to more than two billion people.

The reality is that covering Britney is cheaper. And this lack of global coverage is all the more disturbing when we see where people go for news. Local TV news looms large, and unfortunately only dedicates 12 percent of its coverage to international news.

And what about the web? The most popular news sites don't do much better. Last year, Pew and the Colombia J-School analyzed the 14,000 stories that appeared on Google News' front page. And they, in fact, covered the same 24 news events. Similarly, a study in e-content showed that much of global news from U.S. news creators is recycled stories from the AP wire services and Reuters, and don't put things into a context that people can understand their connection to it.

So, if you put it all together, this could help explain why today's college graduates as well as less educated Americans know less about the world than their counterparts did 20 years ago. And if you think it's simply because we are not interested, you would be wrong. In recent years, Americans who say they closely follow global news most of the time grew to over 50 percent.

The real question: is this distorted world view what we want for Americans in our increasingly interconnected world? I know we can do better. And can we afford not to? Thank you.