Question

We live in a time when technology has enabled everyone to be a journalist. Yet not everyone has the proper training. Whether out of ignorance or out of a sense of honor, some of the journalism online has done a better job of changing public opinion than showing the whole truth.

Two recent stories are perfect reminders of the difference between the urge to change minds and basic journalism ethics(道德标准).

“A college kid took some birds from a nearby tree and was sentenced to 10 years in prison,” went a recent online headline from the Chinese Internet. The accompanying vote showed that 85 percent of respondents sided with the student. Some joked that most boys would be guilty of such a crime because everyone had stolen birds when they were children.

Left out of the original report was the fact that the birds in question were falcons, which are on the nation’s list of protected, endangered species. Birdwatchers also said that it was unlikely Yan Xiaotian, the 21-year-old defendant, had found the 12 birds in one tree. For this particular species, he had to search a much larger area.

For me, the most important questions are: Did he know it was illegal before he took the birds and did he know that before he sold them?

Follow-up reporting has found that the evidence showed that Yan knew what he was doing. The only point of uncertainty is the very first time he took the first birds when he could be unaware of their status and value. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor(公诉人) started out asking for a light punishment, but took a U-turn when data from Yan’s cellphone clearly showed that he had stolen them.

The punishment, while sounding harsh, followed the law almost to the letter. The court has since said it would review the case, a sign of giving in to public pressure.

Let’s look at the second story, which can be read as either “Elderly man had to walk in his shorts for hours in Sanya after his bike was taken by the city’s quasi-police”(城管) or “Retired official illegally parked his bike for a swim and made the city apologize and fire a low-paid city management staff member”.

Both played up(渲染) different parts of the same story. For me, Bi Guochang’s age and former official title are not relevant to the case. The key is whether he indeed parked his bike illegally and whether proper procedures were being followed by taking it away and making him get it back. Yet the reports focused on the image of an old man walking only in his shorts. He could have phoned his family for backup or taken a taxi home first before complaining, as most would do in that situation.

Such stories read like badly-written morality tales, with everything in black and white and a simple yes-or-no message. Real life is much more complicated. Reporters have to be neutral and avoid taking sides too early.

China Daily

1.Why was Yan Xiaotian sentenced to 10 years in prison?

A. He took some birds from a nearby tree.

B. He searched a much larger area for birds.

C. He illegally took some falcons and sold them.

D. He took 12 birds without knowing they were falcons.

2.According to the passage, the writer implied that ________.

A. the judges should still follow the law strictly

B. the punishment was too much for the student

C. the student didn’t get fair treatment from the judges

D. the court will resentence the student

3.The writer mentioned the second story to show that ________.

A. the reports focused on the appearance of Bi Guochang rather than the truth

B. the journalists expressed their sympathy for the elderly person

C. the local officers didn’t follow proper procedures when they dealt with Bi’s case

D. the city’s quasi-police were to blame for Bi’s troubles

4.Which of the following is the best title of the passage?

A. Two morality stories

B. How to be a journalist

C. Unfair punishment

D. Telling truth or taking sides

Answer

1. C

2. A

3. A

4. D

【解析】

这是一篇新闻评论。作者通过对社会关注的两则新闻报道的叙述，意在说明在线新闻在报道事件时要基于事实本来的面目而不是偏袒某一方。

1.细节理解题。由第四段Left out of the original report was the fact that the birds in question were falcons, which are on the nation’s list of protected, endangered species和第五段For me, the most important questions are: Did he know it was illegal before he took the birds and did he know that before he sold them?第六段but took a U-turn when data from Yan’s cellphone clearly showed that he had stolen them可知，Yan Xiaotian被判十年的原因是他偷了被列入了国家保护的濒危物种猎鹰，并将它们出售。故C选项正确。

2.推理判断题。由第七段The punishment, while sounding harsh, followed the law almost to the letter可知，这种惩罚虽然听起来很严厉，但几乎是遵照法律来判决的。此后，法院表示将对此案进行复审，这是向公众压力妥协的迹象。由此推理出，作者认为法官仍应严格遵守法律。故A选项正确。

3.推理判断题。由第九段可知，Bi Guochang的年龄和以前的官衔与案件无关。关键是他是否确实非法停车，以及是否按照适当的程序把自行车拿走并让他把它拿回来。然而，这些报道集中在一个老人只穿着短裤走路的形象上。他可以先打电话给家人请求支援，或者在抱怨之前先坐出租车回家，就像大多数人在这种情况下所做的那样。由此推断出这样的报道只是集中于表面的现象而不是事实的真相。故A选项正确。

4.标题归纳题。作者通过对社会关注的两则新闻报道的叙述，意在说明在线新闻报道事件时要基于事件本来的面目而不是偏袒某一方。故D选项正确。