演講MP3+雙語文稿:當?shù)胤叫侣勏鰰r，民主也會消亡

聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學(xué)習(xí)使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:當?shù)胤叫侣勏鰰r，民主也會消亡，希望你會喜歡！

【演講者及介紹】Chuck Plunkett

查克·普倫基特提倡提高公眾意識，支持高質(zhì)量的地方新聞。

【演講主題】當?shù)胤叫侣勏鰰r，民主也會消亡

When local news dies, so does democracy

【中英文字幕】

翻譯者Ivana Korom 校對者Krystian Aparta

00:16

I've been a journalist for more than 23 years, at the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette," the "Pittsburgh Tribune Review" and most recently, "The Denver Post."

我從事記者這個行業(yè) 已經(jīng)超過 23 年了， 我曾工作過的報社有 《阿肯色民主公報》、 《匹茲堡論壇報》， 之后我最近在《丹佛郵報》工作。

00:23

(Applause)

（掌聲）

00:26

When I started at "The Denver Post" in 2003, it was among the country's 10 largest newspapers, with an impressive subscriber base and nearly 300 journalists. At the time, I was in my 30s. Any ambitious journalist that age aspires to work for one of the big national papers, like "The New York Times" or "The Wall Street Journal." But I was simply blown away by my first few weeks at "The Denver Post," and I thought, "This is going to be my paper. I can make a career right here."

2003 年我最開始 在《丹佛郵報》工作時， 那時它是全國規(guī)模最大的 十家報社之一， 有著極其可觀的訂閱人數(shù) 和近 300 名記者。 當年我 30 多歲， 和任何一位差不多年紀 且躊躇滿志的記者一樣， 有志于能在國家規(guī)模的大報社工作—— 像是《紐約時報》或是《華爾街日報》。 但我在《丹佛郵報》最開始 工作的幾周 就被他們深深震撼到了， 我當時就想： 這個報社太適合我了， 我定能在這兒成就一番事業(yè)。

01:00

Well, seven years passed, we were sold to a hedge fund, Alden Global Capital. Within a few years --

七年過去了， 我們被賣給了一家對沖基金， 奧爾登全球資本。 就這幾年——

01:08

(Laughs)

（笑聲）

01:10

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

01:11

Some of you know this story.

在座有些人都知道這個故事。

01:13

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

01:16

Within a few years, buyouts ordered by past and present owners would reduce the newsroom by nearly half. And I understood. The rule of thumb used to be that 80 percent of a newspaper's revenue came from pricy print ads and classifieds. With emerging giants like Google and Facebook and Craigslist, those advertizing dollars were evaporating. The entire industry was undergoing a massive shift from print to digital. Alden's orders were to be digital first. Take advantage of blogs, video and social media. They said that one day, the money we made online would make up for the money we lost in print. But that day never came.

幾年間， 由于現(xiàn)今和曾經(jīng)的股權(quán)擁有者收購 導(dǎo)致新聞編輯部的規(guī)模近乎減半。 我也能理解。 憑經(jīng)驗估計，一家報社 80% 的收入 都是來源于 昂貴的印刷廣告和分類廣告。 隨著像是谷歌、臉書和克雷格列表 之類的科技巨頭的出現(xiàn)， 那些廣告收入就像是蒸發(fā)了一樣。 整個行業(yè)都面臨著 從紙質(zhì)印刷到電子報刊的巨大轉(zhuǎn)變。 奧爾登資本的指令是把電子化放第一位。 他們充分利用 博客、視頻和社交媒體。 他們說有一天， 我們在線上賺到的利潤 會彌補我們在紙刊上的損失。 但那一天從未到來。

02:04

In 2013, we won a Pulitzer Prize for covering the Aurora theater shooting. Alden ordered that more journalists be cut. Again, and again, and again, and again. We were forced to say goodbye to talented, hardworking journalists we considered not just friends but family. Those of us left behind were stretched impossibly thin, covering multiple beats and writing rushed articles. Inside a windowless meeting room in March of 2018, we learned that 30 more would have to go. This paper that once had 300 journalists would now have 70.

在 2013 年，我們因 報道了奧羅拉劇院槍擊案 而獲得了普利策獎。 但那年，奧爾登資本 卻依舊辭退了更多的記者。 一次， 接一次， 又一次， 再一次。 我們被迫和許多 勤奮又有才華的記者說再見。 我們不僅把他們當朋友， 還把他們當作家人。 而我們這些剩下的人 由于人數(shù)縮減， 得去報道多個事件，不斷趕稿子， 也為此感到身心俱疲。 2018 年 3 月， 在一間沒有窗的會議室中， 我們得知還會有 30 名記者被裁。 這個報社曾今有 300 名記者， 如今卻只剩下 70 名。

02:53

And it didn't make sense. Here, we'd won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. We shifted our focus from print to digital, we hit ambitious targets and email from the brass talked up the Post's profit margins, which industry experts pegged at nearly 20 percent. So if our company was so successful and so profitable, why was our newsroom getting so much smaller and smaller?

這一點也說不通。 后來，我們又多次獲得了普利策獎。 我們將重心 從紙質(zhì)刊物轉(zhuǎn)移至了電子期刊， 我們完成了有野心的目標， 來自報社上層的郵件 稱贊了郵報的利潤率， 業(yè)界專家估計該數(shù)字在 20% 左右。 那么，既然我們公司這么成功， 利潤又如此可觀， 為什么我們編輯部的人 依舊越來越少呢？

03:22

I knew that what was happening in Colorado was happening around the country. Since 2004, nearly 1,800 newsrooms have closed. You've heard of food deserts. These are news deserts. They are communities, often entire counties, with little to zero news coverage whatsoever. Making matters worse, many papers have become ghost ships, pretending to sail with a newsroom but really just wrapping ads around filler copy. More and more newsrooms are being sold off to companies like Alden. And in that meeting, their intentions couldn't have been clearer. Harvest what you can, throw away what's left.

我清楚，在科羅拉多州發(fā)生的事情 也正在全國發(fā)生著。 自 2004 年起， 近 1800 家新聞編輯部被關(guān)閉。 大家都聽說過食物荒漠吧。 （指新鮮食品缺乏或其價格高昂的地區(qū)） 這些就是新聞荒漠。 有些社區(qū)，通常甚至是整個郡， 只有很少， 或是沒有任何的新聞報道。 更糟的是， 很多報紙就像是幽靈船一樣， 假裝自己有個新聞編輯部， 而實際上只不過 在用廣告包裹著無意義的拷貝文章。 后來，越來越多的新聞編輯部 被賣給了像奧爾登資本一樣的公司。 那一次會議中， 他們的意圖不能更加明顯了。 盡可能收獲你能從中獲利的， 扔掉剩下的。

04:10

So, working in secret with a team of eight writers, we prepared a special Sunday Perspective section on the importance of local news.

所以，我和其他 8 個專欄作者 偷偷地準備了 一個特殊的“周日觀點”板塊， 內(nèi)容是地方新聞的重要性。

04:20

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

04:22

The Denver rebellion launched like a missile, and went off like a hydrogen bomb.

丹佛的這場抗議活動 開始時像是一顆導(dǎo)彈， 卻引起了氫彈一樣的效果。

04:27

[In An Extraordinary Act Of Defiance, Denver Post Urges Its Owner To Sell The Paper]

[ 一次非凡的抗議行為， 《丹佛郵報》敦促報社擁有者出售報社 ]

04:31

['Denver Post' Editorial Board Publicly Calls Out Paper's Owner]

[《丹佛郵報》編輯部公然挑戰(zhàn)報刊擁有者 ]

04:35

[On The Denver Post, vultures and superheroes]

[《丹佛郵報》，兀鷲與超級英雄]

04:37

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲與歡呼聲）

04:41

Clearly, we weren't alone in our outrage. But as expected, I was forced to resign.

很顯然，并不只有我們 對現(xiàn)狀憤怒不滿。 不過，不出意外，我被迫辭職了。

04:48

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

04:50

And a year later, nothing's changed. "The Denver Post" is but a few lone journalists doing their admirable best in this husk of a once-great paper.

一年過后，一切如舊。 《丹佛郵報》的記者仍然寥寥無幾， 在這個曾輝煌過的報社空殼下 盡己所能地工作。

05:01

Now, at least some of you are thinking to yourself, "So what?" Right? So what? Let this dying industry die. And I kind of get that. For one thing, the local news has been in decline for so long that many of you may not even remember what it's like to have a great local paper. Maybe you've seen "Spotlight" or "The Paper," movies that romanticize what journalism used to be.

現(xiàn)在，你們中有些人肯定在想 “那又怎樣？” 對不對？ 那又怎樣？ 讓這個垂死的行業(yè)消失吧。 我也理解你們?yōu)槭裁磿@么想。 一方面，地方新聞業(yè) 在走下坡路也不是一天兩天了， 你們很多人甚至都不記得 有一個高質(zhì)量的地方報刊 是什么樣的了。 你可能聽說過 《聚焦》或是《媒體先鋒》， 這兩部浪漫化舊時新聞業(yè)的電影。

05:31

Well, I'm not here to be romantic or nostalgic. I'm here to warn you that when local news dies, so does our democracy. And that should concern you --

但我不是來這兒 耽于浪漫或是懷舊的。 我來這兒是為了警告大家： 當?shù)胤叫侣勏е畷r， 我們的民主也將不復(fù)存在。 這是你們應(yīng)該擔心的情況——

05:42

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲與歡呼聲）

05:50

And that should concern you, regardless of whether you subscribe. Here's why. A democracy is a government of the people. People are the ultimate source of power and authority. A great local newsroom acts like a mirror. Its journalists see the community and reflect it back. That information is empowering. Seeing, knowing, understanding -- this is how good decisions are made.

不管你是否訂閱報紙， 你們都應(yīng)對此感到擔憂。 原因如下。 民主是人民的政府。 人民是權(quán)力的最基本的來源。 一個好的地方新聞編劇部 充當著鏡子的角色。 記者觀察并反映社區(qū)中的情況。 這樣的信息能賦予人力量。 看見、了解、理解—— 這樣才能制定出好的決策。

06:20

When you have a great local paper, you have journalists sitting in on every city council meeting. Listening in to state house and senate hearings. Those important but, let's face it, sometimes devastatingly boring committee hearings.

如果你有一個很棒的本地報社， 你就會有記者坐在那里， 參與每一個市議會、 州議會和參議院聽證會。 那些重要的，但說實話 有時也是無聊到令人絕望的 委員會聽證會。

06:35

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

06:36

Journalists discover the flaws and ill-conceived measures and those bills fail, because the public was well-informed. Readers go to the polls and they know the pros and cons behind every ballot measure, because journalists did the heavy lifting for them. Even better, researchers have found that reading a local paper can mobilize 13 percent of nonvoters to vote. Thirteen percent.

記者們能發(fā)現(xiàn) 不完善且考慮不周的舉措， 之后當民眾掌握了足夠多的信息， 那些議案就不會被通過。 報刊讀者到投票站去選舉時 就已經(jīng)了解 每張選票背后的利弊了， 因為記者們已經(jīng)替他們 整理好了這些繁瑣的信息。 更好的是， 研究者們發(fā)現(xiàn)閱讀本地報紙 能鼓動 13% 不參加選舉投票的人去投票。 13% 。

07:03

(Applause)

（掌聲）

07:08

That's the number that can change the outcome of many elections. When you don't have a great local paper, voters are left stranded at the polls, confused, trying to make their best guess based on a paragraph of legalese. Flawed measures pass. Well-conceived but highly technical measures fail. Voters become more partisan.

這可是一個能改變 很多選舉結(jié)果的數(shù)字。 如果你沒有一個好的地方報社， 投票人就會在投票站前面不知所措， 滿臉困惑， 只能根據(jù)大段的法律術(shù)語去 做出他們最佳的猜測。 有缺陷的法案就是這樣被通過的。 而考慮周全但措辭過于專業(yè)的法案 卻沒能被通過。 投票人們更容易 盲目且堅定地支持某些政客或觀點。

07:33

Recently in Colorado, our governor's race had more candidates than anyone can remember. In years past, journalists would have thoroughly vetted, scrutinized, fact-checked, profiled, debated every contender in the local paper. "The Denver Post" did its best. But in the place of past levels of rigorous reporting and research, the public is increasingly left to interpret dog-and-pony-show stump speeches and clever campaign ads for themselves. With advertizing costing what it does, electability comes down to money. So by the end of the primaries, the only candidates left standing were the wealthiest and best-funded. Many experienced and praise-worthy candidates never got oxygen, because when local news declines, even big-ticket races become pay-to-play.

最近在科羅拉多州， 我們州長一職的競選， 參與競選者的數(shù)量是史無前例的。 在往些年， 記者們會通過地方報紙 對每位競選人進行仔細審查、 核查事實信息、 概述競選人情況，并進行辯論。 《丹佛郵報》 就在竭盡所能做到最好。 但沒有了以往的那種細致報道與調(diào)查， 公眾逐漸被迫去嘗試自己解讀那些 外表炫麗、內(nèi)容空洞的政治演講 和智能的競選廣告。 而政治宣傳的高昂費用 導(dǎo)致了競選最終 只取決于競選人的財力大小。 于是到了初選結(jié)束時， 臺上剩下的都是那些 最富有且擁有最大資金支持的競選者。 很多富有經(jīng)驗、值得稱贊的競選者 卻失去了繼續(xù)角逐的機會， 因為當?shù)胤叫侣剺I(yè)走向衰退時， 就算是這樣的競選活動也變成了 誰有錢，誰入場。

08:30

Is it any surprise that our new governor was the candidate worth more than 300 million dollars? Or that billionaire businessmen like Donald Trump and Howard Schultz can seize the political stage? I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about free and fair elections.

這些事實會讓你們感到意外嗎？ 比如，我們的新州長身價 超過 3 億美元？ 或是億萬富翁唐納德 · 特朗普（Donald Trump） 和霍華德 · 舒爾茨（Howard Schultz） 能占據(jù)政治舞臺？ 我并不認為我們的國父 會認為這些是自由公平的選舉。

08:50

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲與歡呼聲）

08:57

Now this is exactly why we can't just rely on the big national papers, like "The Journal" and "The Times" and "The Post." Those are tremendous papers, and we need them now, my God, more than ever before. But there is no world in which they could cover every election in every county in the country. No. The newsroom best equipped to cover your local election ought to be your local newsroom. If you're lucky and still have one.

這就是我們不能僅僅依靠 大型國家級報刊的原因， 像是《華爾街日報》 《紐約時報》和《華盛頓郵報》。 那些都是規(guī)模極大的報紙， 我的天啊， 我們現(xiàn)在比以往更需要它們。 但它們絕沒有可能 涵蓋國家內(nèi)每個郡縣的選舉新聞。 不可能。 最具備條件來報道當?shù)剡x舉情況的 應(yīng)該是地方性的新聞編輯部。 如果你足夠幸運 還有這么一個報社的話。

09:29

When election day is over, a great local paper is still there, waiting like a watchdog. When they're being watched, politicians have less power, police do right by the public, even massive corporations are on their best behavior.

當選舉結(jié)束后， 一個好的地方報刊還依然在那兒 充當著監(jiān)察者的角色。 當有人在監(jiān)察時， 政客的權(quán)利就被削弱了， 警察會公正的對待大眾， 哪怕是大型企業(yè) 也能遵紀守法，做到最好。

09:46

This mechanism that for generations has helped inform and guide us no longer functions the way it used to. You know intimately what the poisoned national discourse feels like, what a mockery of reasoned debate it has become. This is what happens when local newsrooms shutter and communities across the country go unwatched and unseen.

這種曾給我們提供信息 并指引了我們數(shù)代人的機制 現(xiàn)如今不再像以前那樣發(fā)揮作用了。 你們比誰都清楚 有害政治演講的壞處， 真是對理性辯論的諷刺啊。 這就是當?shù)胤叫侣勛呦蛩ノⅲ?舉國社區(qū)未受到監(jiān)察時 會發(fā)生的情況。

10:12

Until we recognize that the decline of local news has serious consequences for our society, this situation will not improve. A properly staffed local newsroom isn't profitable, and in this age of Google and Facebook, it's not going to be. If newspapers are vital to our democracy, then we should fund them like they're vital to our democracy.

這種情況不會好轉(zhuǎn)， 除非我們能意識到地方新聞業(yè)的衰微 及其對我們的社會具有非常嚴重的影響。 一個人員齊備的 地方新聞編輯部是無法盈利的， 尤其在這個谷歌與臉書的時代， 永遠不可能。 但若是新聞業(yè) 對我們的民主如此重要， 那么我們就應(yīng)該提供 與之重要性相稱的資金。

10:37

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲與歡呼聲）

10:43

We cannot stand by and let our watchdogs be put down. We can't let more communities vanish into darkness. It is time to debate a public funding option before the fourth estate disappears, and with it, our grand democratic experiment. We need much more than a rebellion. It is time for a revolution.

我們不能冷眼旁觀， 看著我們的監(jiān)察者被打倒。 我們不能讓更多的社區(qū) 消失在黑暗中。 是時候在我們的第四權(quán)消失之前， 在我們偉大的民主實驗消失之前， 討論出一個公共籌資的方案了。 我們所需的不止是一次抗議。 我們需要一場革命。

11:05

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

11:06

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲與歡呼聲）