Question

    When is a media company not a media company? When it’s on the Internet. YouTube and Facebook convey what their users read and watch, and sell advertising next to it. Edited content, financed by advertising? It sounds a lot like the model that dominated media for much of the 20th century. And yet these firms have long claimed to be mere "platforms”，passively hosting content they say they are neither able nor willing to assess. It's true that they are not like traditional media companies. Much of their content is donated by their users; and algorithms (算) not editors, decide what is most worthy of attention. But they are getting more like them every day.

The anger over “fake news” has led Facebook to employ fact checkers, hire editorial staff to control the algorithms, crack down on the spread of junk and invest in tools to help out journalists.

So what kind of media companies are Facebook, YouTube and the rest? Not good ones. Their enormous power to inform, and the huge potential value of forming connections between people around the world, have in fair measure been wasted by prioritising attention-grabbing content 一 regardless of its quality, truthfulness or seriousness, which has made the online content cheap and its tone rude.

The tech giants are now coming under increasing pressure to clean up their acts. Perhaps more exactly, the advertisers have begun to revolt （反抗）：Google and Facebook now take nine out of every 10 new dollars spent on online advertising, although they have been accused of marking their own homework'", making unconvincing and unverifiable （无可考证的）claims about its effectiveness.

Meanwhile, the companies are avoiding responsibility for setting rules over their services. Excuses that the problem is too technically complex are not convincing: their engineers have proven skillful at cracking down on, say, copyright violation when it suits the firms. Nor does a firm position on free speech hold up: history is filled with examples of how a fair balance can be struck. Those have involved dialogue and democratic considerations that social media companies have thus iar mostly disdained （轻视）.They should do so no longer. The firms have enjoyed the privileges and profits of media for long enough: it's time they picked up the responsibilities too.

1.What does the author think of YouTube and Facebook's claim in Paragraph 1?

A.It is unexpected. B.It is absurd.

C.It is practical. D.It is influential.

2.YouTube and Facebook aren't considered as good media companies mainly because of  .

A.their low quality content B.their prejudice against morality

C.their being a time-waster D.their lack of control of speech

3.According to the text, tech giants' advertising business      .

A.may not actually satisfy advertisers' needs

B.has invited users^ questioning of privacy issues

C.will be cut down to respond to public discontent

D.may not gain profit as ad spending keeps rising

4.In the last paragraph, the author suggests that new media companies should    .

A.improve their overall technology

B.abandon the democratic ideal of free speech

C.take responsibility for regulating copyright issues

D.act as a medium despite their Internet background

Answer

1.B

2.A

3.A

4.D

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。文章介绍了YouTube和Facebook传达用户阅读和观看的内容，并在旁边出售广告。这并不能真正满足广告商的需求，尽管他们有互联网背景，但还是要扮演媒体的角色。

1.推理判断题。根据第一段的Edited content, financed by advertising? It sounds a lot like the model that dominated media for much of the 20th century. 编辑内容，靠广告赚钱?这听起来很像20世纪主导媒体的模式。由此判断出，作者认为YouTube和Facebook的声明是荒谬可笑的。故选B。

2.细节理解题。根据第三段的Their enormous power to inform, and the huge potential value of forming connections between people around the world, have in fair measure been wasted by prioritising attention-grabbing content 一 regardless of its quality, truthfulness or seriousness, which has made the online content cheap and its tone rude.可知，他们巨大的信息能力，以及在世界各地人们之间建立联系的巨大潜在价值，在公平的尺度上被浪费了，因为他们把吸引眼球的内容放在了首位，而不管其质量、真实性或严肃性，这使得在线内容便宜，其语调粗鲁。YouTube和Facebook之所以不被认为是优秀的媒体公司，主要是因为它们的内容质量不高。故选A。

3.细节理解题。根据第四段的Perhaps more exactly, the advertisers have begun to revolt （反抗）：Google and Facebook now take nine out of every 10 new dollars spent on online advertising, although they have been accused of marking their own homework'", making unconvincing and unverifiable （无可考证的）claims about its effectiveness.可知，广告商们已经开始法抗，即科技巨头的广告业务并不能真正的满足广告商的要求。故选A。

4.推理判断题。根据最后一段的The firms have enjoyed the privileges and profits of media for long enough: it's time they picked up the responsibilities too.可知，这些公司享受媒体特权和利润的时间已经够长了:现在是他们承担起责任的时候了。由此判断出作者认为尽管新媒体公司有互联网背景，但还是要扮演媒体的角色。故选D。