ПОСОБИЕ ПО ОБУЧЕНИЮ ПИСЬМЕННОМУ ПЕРЕВОДУ
ПО СПЕЦИАЛЬНОСТИ Для студентов факультета журналистики
Институт международного права и экономики имени А.С. Грибоедова
кафедрой иностранных языков
С о с т а в и т е л и: Т.И. Клюкина,
Пособие по обучению письменному переводу по специальности. – М.: ИМПЭ им. А.С. Грибоедова, 2006. – 108 с. Подготовлено на кафедре иностранных языков. Пособие представляет собой подборку оригинальных текстов по разнообразной тематике, работа над которыми предполагает развитие навыка письменного перевода, что является важной составляющей обучения студентов факультета журналистики.
Пособие состоит из двух частей: первая включает материал по теме «Средства массовой информации» (Mass Media) и относится непосредственно к профессиональной деятельности студентов; вторая (Food for Thought) охватывает широкий круг вопросов по актуальной современной проблематике (наука, психология, современные технологии, бизнес, окружающая среда и т.д.).
The British are great newspaper readers. They used to read even more 50 years ago, when there was no competition from television, but even so almost every adult in the country reads, or at least glances at, a daily newspaper.
The high numbers reflect the fact that newspapers are not only popular with educated middle-class but also with working-class people. The more serious, weightier paper are known as broadsheets*, a term which refers to their big page size. The lighter, easier-to-read papers have a page size half as big, and are called tabloids*. The Times, Daily Telegraphe, Guardian and Independent are broadsheets; The Sun, Mirror and Star are tabloids. The Express and Mail are in between – tabloid in size, but semi-broadsheet in content.
The cultural gulf* between the broadsheets and the tabloids is enormous; it almost seems strange to call them both newspapers, A serious paper like The Independent gives long, detailed news stories with historical analysis, and carefully balanced comment which is usually separate from the news reporting. It has a lot of foreign news, it has sections on books, education and computers; it rarely mentions the National Lottery, except to discuss its organisation.
The lightest of the tabloids, The Sun, has very short items on politics and world events in which it freely mixes facts and comment; it has many pages of gossip about TV celebrities and lots of sex stories, it has competitions and horoscopes and semi-pornographic photos of women; it is obsessed with the lottery and lottery winners. broadsheet – широкоформатная газета
tabloid – малоформатная газета
gulf (fig) – пропаcть
to be obsessed with – быть одержимым ч-л, быть помешанным на ч-л
In spite of the apparently light content of the tabloids, they appear to have as much if not more political influence than the broadsheets. Although television has taken over as the main news provider, the law prevents TV from taking sides* in politics.
So it is left to the newspapers to support parties and give interpretations of the news. None of the daily papers is actually run by the political parties, however.
Several are owned by companies controlled by individuals: there is a tradition of rich and powerful press barons*.
Viscount Rothermere dominate the Mail; Lord Hollick, The Express. Some of these press barons are not English but from Commonwealth countries: Conrad Black of The Daily Telegraph is Canadian; Rupert Murdoch of The Sun is Australian.
Actually, Murdoch’s multinational company, News Corporation, also owns The Times, The Sunday Times and the massively popular Sunday paper News of the World, it also controls the satellite TV channel BskyB, various media companies in the USA, a satellite TV service based in Hong Kong and 70 per cent of all Australian newspapers.
Many observers are concerned that with all these media interests Murdoch has bought himself too much influence in politics.
The Sun is by far the biggest-selling paper in Britain, and it always has a clear political line.
In addition, many of its readers are the floating voters* who change their minds at election time and so decide the results. Throughout the 80s and early 90s it gave solid support to Mrs Thatcher, and the Conservatives won four elections in succession. As the Labour Party moved to the political right, Murdoch deserted his old allies and switched his support to Tony Blair in 1997, so once again The Sun was on the winning side. It is not possible to say that Murdoch actually delivered these election results, but in some cases his intervention made a very great impact. to take sides – принимать ч-л сторону
press baron – газетный магнат
floating voters – избиратели, на которых нельзя твердо расчитывать
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
As in all democratic countries, press freedom is an important aspect of British life . In this country without a written constitution, such freedom is not actually set down in the law*, but there are no laws restricting it, so the end result is much the same.
In fact, it is fairer to say that there are very few laws restricting it; for example, it is illegal to incite racial hatred*. Recent discussion of press freedom has been around the question of privacy: how far should the press be permitted to investigate and report people’s private lives? Things have changed a lot since the 1930s, when King Edward VIII was having a love affair with a divorced American woman.
Mrs Simpson, and the press agreed not to report it. In the 1990s, an embarrassing phone conversation between Prince Charles and his Mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles was illegally recorded and then splashed all over the newspapers*. The sex lives or financial dealings of politicians became one of the journalists’ most popular topics. The paparazzi, mainly photographers with long lenses, were a very international group, but one of their biggest markets was the British tabloid press. There were many proposals to limit invasions of privacy*, but without result: it always appeared impossible to distinguish between pure gossip and items of real public importance.
The issue came to a head* in 1997 with the deaths of Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Al Fayed while their car was being chased through Paris by a pack of paparazzi on motocycles. Has she, in effect, been killed by the media? Were the newspaper readers in some way to blame for the tragedy?
The shock of her death was something unique in British life: the whole country seemed to come to a standstill for several weeks. For a full month, 35 per cent of newspaper stories were devoted to the Princess – more than to any news event in history. One reason for this was the feeling of collective guilt. Although it became clear that the paparazzi in Paris were not directly to blame for the accident. Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, in his speech at the funeral blamed the press. There were loud calls for more regulation*. Many said that the voluntary code of practice operated by the Press Complaints Commission* was not enough. But in the end, the only action was an agreement from the newspapers not to harass* Diana’s sons, Prince William and Prince Harry. to be set down in law – быть изложенным в праве
to incite racial hatred – разжигать ненависть (вражду)
to be splashed all over newspapers – газеты раструбили эту новость
Press Complaints Commission – Комиссия по жалобам на прессу
to harass – изводить, травить, досаждать
Regulation of TV in Britain is very different from regulation of the press. Whereas newspapers are mostly about news, the TV is mostly entertainment and so is subject to more rules on sex, violence and bad language. As watchdogs, there are the Broadcasting Standards Council* and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission*. They make sure, for example, that there is very little pornography on TV; and they police* the 9 p.m. watershed : the time before which all programmes must be suitable for children. Strangely, more complaints are received from the public about bad language – swearing – than anything else: the British seem to be particularly sensitive to this rather superficial* issue.
It is on the question of politics that TV rules differ most from those which apply to newspapers.
While newspapers can express any political views, or support any political party they wish to, TV channels are not permitted such freedom; they are obliged to maintain a strict balance between the political parties, to be impartial*. One programme which shows the Conservatives in a good light must be followed soon after by one which favours Labour.
The system seems quite heavy-handed*, but it is easy to see why it has come into being.
Although newspaper readership is high, people actually tend to get most of their news from television: a recent survey showed that 62 per cent rely on TV and only 17 per cent on newspapers as their main source of national news. At the same time, there are only five terrestrial TV channels* – so without regulation, one rich political party could completely dominate the news on the commercial channels. The government of the day, of whichever party, could manipulate the state-owned company, the BBC.
The BBC is not an organ of the government; it is run by governors*, some of whom are appointed by the government, but there is little political control. All political parties, complain sometimes about the BBC’s treatment of them, and that includes the party in power: the last Conservative Government often said that the BBC was against it. The BBC is funded by a TV licence fee*: everyone with a TV has to buy one each year for just over £100. The system means that the BBC can put on educational material which would not be commercially viable*: it fulfils the role of a public-service broadcaster. And many feel that it is worth £2 per week to be able to watch films which are not interrupted by advertisements. Broadcasting Standards Council – Сoвет по стандарту вещательного телевидения
Broadcasting Complaints Commission – Комиссия по претензиям к вещанию
to police – строго следить, контролировать
superficial – поверхностный
to be impartial – быть беспристрастным (непредвзятым)
Viewers trust TV news partly because they know that it is not in the hands of one political party, and partly because it is much harder to tell lies with live interviews* and filmed reports of events* than on the pages of newspapers. Still photos are easy to manipulate on a computer, but video is far more difficult. Seeing the faces of politicians as they speak, and hearing their voices, helps the viewer to identify the truth. However, the truth is not really quite so easy to obtain. In reality, politicians still manage to manipulate their TV messages in all sorts of ways. Eaсh interview is planned in advance; the TV presenter and the politician agree on rules of engagement*: questions will be asked on the economy but not on Northern Ireland, for example.
The overall political agenda is created by politicians, not by TV or the press. An interesting case is that of green issues and Mrs Thatcher. She had not been at all interested in climate change, until one day she decided it might be a vote winner, so she started talking about it. The media picked this up and suddenly employed environment correspondents to cover the green stories.
Then in the European Parliament elections in 1987, the Green Party won 2,3 million votes, and Mrs Thatcher realised that she was actually losing votes as people became interested in the environment. She dropped the topic, and the media followed her lead*. Reporting of green issues in the newspapers and on TV went back to the same low level as before, and has stayed there ever since.
With only five terrestrial channels available, it is not surprising that many people have switched on to satellite TV. One of the biggest visual changes in British cities in the last ten years has been the appearance of satellite dishes on houses and flats, especially in working-class areas; more than a quarter of all households have one. In addition, about 7 per cent have cable TV. Both of these systems offer lots of channels – Sky Movies, Sky Sports, Cartoon Network. Discovery, UK Style and many more. These channels make their money by charging subscriptions and through advertising, and they are doing very well commercially. But their contribution to the quality of TV is questionable: they make their own news and sports programmes, but very little else. Unlike the five terrestrial channels they do not invest in original programme making: they recycle* material made by others. live interview – интервью в прямом эфире
filmed report of events – репортаж событий в записи
engagement – (зд) обязательство
to follow one’s lead – следовать примеру
to recycle – перерабатывать
Radio is, in a sense, the Cindrella of the media: it is often left out of discussions, or, as in this chapter, left until last. Television is more glamorous, and everyone watches it. But 90 per cent of people say that they listen to the radio in their spare time- in fact, it is the third most popular leisure activity after watching TV and visiting friends. But in spite of predictions when television first arrived, radio has not died, in fact its popularity has risen.
Because radio is comparatively inexpensive, it can fill far more niches than television: there is local radio even in small communities, and there are hundreds of specialist stations. People living in Birmingham, for example, can receive 27 stations on FM, including no fewer than nine BBC stations (national and local), A Welsh language station, and a variety for pop music. At one time, the BBC had a monopoly on radio in Britain, whereas today it has to compete with lots of commercial stations, both local and nationwide. Radio 3, the BBC’s classical music station, is very academic and serious, but it used to do quite well because it had no competition. Then in 1992, Classic FM came on the air*, with Vivaldi, Mozart, jokes and recipes all day long, and Radio 3 lost most of its audience.
Surprisingly, however, in the pop-music field, BBC Radio I fought back* against fierce competition, and it remains the favourite music station for young people in Britain. to come on the air – выходить в эфир
to fight back – отбиваться
The statistics make for uncomfortable reading. It is not overly* melodramatic to suggest that the continuing gradual fall in the circulation of daily newspapers across the world is a potential threat to democracy. If that sounds far-fetched*, then consider the fact that the history of the growth of newspapers is also the history of the growth of democracy.
When news was first published in 16th century Britain and its publishers faced persistent conflict with the Tudor authorities. So it has been with governments ever since, in Britain and in virtually every other country. The authorities, whoever and wherever they may be have been antagonistic to the freedom exercised by the press. Indeed, it is undeniable that the greater the press freedom in any society, the greater has been the freedom of its citizens.
So how should we view the drip-drip-drip decline* of newspaper sales in so many countries? Does this really threaten our freedom, or should we place our faith in the technology which, in the eyes of many, has obviated* the need for the daily intelligence printed in messy ink on substandard paper*? Nowhere is the decline more obvious than in industrialised countries, where literacy rates are supposedly at their highest. According to the latest survey of World Press Trends carried out by the World Association of Newspapers (FIEJ), the downward trend is accelerating. «Not only were sales down again in 24 of the 38 countries for which we have data, but the rate of decline, particularly in Europe and the United States, increased last year,» says Timothy Balding, FIEJ director general.
Though papers in some Asian and Latin American countries did put on sales, the rate of increase in these regions also slowed significantly last year. There is a global press crisis. Fewer people are reading about the events which shape their lives.
The simplest reason (and therefore the most suspect) is that more and more people now prefer to get their news from the screen, television or computer. But the British experience suggests otherwise. Network television news attracts relatively small audiences. Rolling news TV channels are watched mainly by other journalists. Few viewers bother with current affairs programmes. The internet is in its infancy. Even if people are getting their news in this way, none of it is an adequate substitute for the quantity of news and quality of analysis and comment available in a diverse range of papers. overly – слишком, чересчур
far-fetched – притянутый за уши (волосы)
drip-drip-drip decline – постепенное снижение
to obviate the need for sth – устранять потребность в ч-л
substandard paper – низкокачественная бумага
Although I stress that what follows is tentative*, surely it is time to consider a more profound, and worrying, cultural change. Perhaps people are not concerned about whether they know what is happening elsewhere. (Nor do they appear to care much what happens on their doorstep : the fall in sales of local papers in Britain is even greater than the nationals.) We might see this as an example of alienation* in a post-second world war society where individualism has replaced a sense of community. It isn’t simply that people don’t know their neighbours, but they don’t mind not knowing them. As for the world of Westminster, it is too remote from « real life ». It’s possible to extend this further into a critique of representative democracy, a sense of hopelessness by the majority who feel unable to influence events. Apathy is the natural consequence. (There is probably even more evidence for this in the United States.)
But the problem of declining newspaper readership is that, in time, as papers go to the wall, the screen will be the only medium to disseminate news*. Next, I would suggest, comes the century of received opinion. In the absence of papers, the logical outcome of McLuhan’s global village is the end of diversity of opinion. Internet babble* only serves to mask us from the truth. Instant worldwide communication through the home-based screen offers an unrivalled opportunity for control by the few over the many.
Insular* human beings, having averted their eyes from papers and turned their backs on the political process and the rest of society, become prey* to the prevailing opinions of the screen controllers. Screen words, written or spoken, and screen images are infinitely more persuasive than words and pictures printed on paper. We give up newspapers at our peril*. tentative – пробный, экспериментальный, предварительный
alienation – отчуждение
to disseminate news – распространять новости
babble – болтовня
insular (fig) – ограниченный
prey – добыча, жертва
peril – риск, опасность
The Fix* (BBCI) was based on true events – a football match scandal in the early 1960s. We could tell it was the early Sixties, because people made pointed references to emerging pop stars (’Ever’ heard of Mick Jagger?’ ‘Who?’), and seemed on the verge of discussing the Cuban missile crisis* and England’s forthcoming victory in the World Cup.
It seemed a rather overloaded film, so keen to give resonance to its narrative that it forgot to give it life. Characters seemed weighed down* by symbolic responsibility and historical duty. Television has rarely seen such a gathering of stereotypes: the hard-bitten newspaper editor (‘I want his balls in my hands’.); the hard-bitten football manager (‘Union be buggered’.); the hard-bitten* sports reporter (‘Oh, give me a rain afternoon at Hughbury’.), not to mention all sorts of stripey-shirted crooks* and spivs* of the kind that Supergran used to see of on Sunday afternoons. the fix – затруднительное положение
missile crisis – ракетный кризис
to be weighed down by smth – быть отягощенным ч-л
spiv – мелкий спекулянт
hard-bitten (fig) – сильно пострадавший
crook – мошенник, жулик
WORLD IN ACTION
World in Action (ITV) seems to have lost its way, as well as its legendary theme music. Looking very closely at last Monday’s film, you could detect the vague outlines of a real documentary – pass-related villainy* laced with heroin, something about illegal immigrants and phoney north London weddings. But the focus of attention was on a man called Donal MacIntyre, and Donal MacIntyre was the reporter from World in Action. He was at centre stage: Master of Disguise, seeker after truth. ‘This is me,’ he said, as his image sprung up* in the film’s first few moments ‘... your guide to a world where love is for sale, and perjury* is the price... ‘ He kept this up for half an hour – while showing us the world seen through his eyes; or, rather, seen through a secret miniature camera fixed somewhere on his head, perhaps deep in his beard.
This summer, MacIntyre assumed the identify of a scuzzy* low-level crook, and moved into a London flat full of rather sad Irish drug users. And, using his beard-o-cam, MacIntyre secretly filmed his flatmates going about their business – which included taking money from a dodgy Wembley solicitor in exchange for assuming false names and ‘marrying’ foreigners desperate for an EU partner. Or, to put it in World in-Action’s preferred language, MacIntyre was alerted by an ‘underworld contact’ to people with ‘all-consuming habits’ involved in a scam* ‘masterminded* by a shadowy figure’. (In TV documentaries, a ‘shadowy figure’ is the person who has outflanked* your researchers.) villainy – злодейство
phon(e)y – поддельный, фальшивый, липовый
to spring up – появляться
perjury – лжесвидетельство
scuzzy(crook) – грязный (мошенник)
dodgy – увертливый, изворотливый
scam – обман
to mastermind – разрабатывать, придумывать
to outflank (fig) – перехитрить
This is television disappearing up its own camcorder*. Secret filming is now so easy to do that it is hard not to do it. The stuff that would once have happened off-screen – that might have been called research – now struts* and preens* in the foreground*. We are asked to study journalistic process, not product (and the finger must point, in particular, at Nick Broomfield’s self-serving glamourisations* of rather ordinary journalistic highs and lows).
MacIntyre could not have been more pleased with himself, as his brave deception took shape – as he persuaded four hopeless junkies* that he was their friend, and as he watched them scrabble* after a few desperate pounds to inject into their groins. We saw MacIntyre gradually ingratiate* himself into the flat; we saw him excitedly follow the movements of Mr Big in his rear-view mirror; and we saw him gaze, with a heavy heart, over the council estate that was now his home – to the accompaniment of Eline kleine Nachtmusik.
All of which left no time to explain the point of the story. The economics and the choreography of the supposed scam were never revealed. (Was anyone being duped* besides the Home Office? Who did the foreign grooms imagine they were marrying? How many such sham marriages take place each year?) But what we did see of the process made it seem more pitiful than disgraceful: the giggling stumble through the marriage service, the exhausting ritual arguments between the bent solicitor and his pathetic accomplices. Nothing in the programme was quite as shocking as the style of the programme itself – the News of the World swagger* of self-justification applied to a grabby, sad trade in counterfeit vows. If a great public service has been performed, it’s hard to see how: it looked rather like betrayal. And it’s interesting to note that the film has caused no one to be arrested. camcorder – видеокамера
Newspapers: We take the Guardian plus the Weekend FT. I haven’t taken a Sunday paper since I left the Suday Times, in 1986, as I know how full they are of froth*.
Magazines: I’m submerged in* wine magazines: two from the UK and one American and I write a column that’s published in several countries so there are even more. I love all trade publications: they can be revealing or unintentionally hilarious* (or both). Private Eye seems funnier after dinner. I belong to the army of ex-Spectator enthusiasts. I have no time for the glossies. Hello! adds to the allure of the hairdresser, and even the doctor’s surgery.
Books: I read quite quickly, mostly fiction. Regular doses of Eliot, Austen and Elizabeth Taylor. Recent thrills include Seamus Deane, Helen Fielding, and biographies of Chandler and Byron.
Film: Cinemas aren’t good for parents with children of different ages. Saw Babe with my youngest, The Full Monty with the middle and Trainspotting with the oldest.
TV: I try to keep up with documentaires and fashions in presenters. I loved Our Friends In The North and Jewel In The Crown – both times.
Radio: Drearily conventional, having moved with age from Capital to Radio 4. I’m becoming a news junkie. I love the sound of Jim Naughtie, Sue Mac-Gregor and Nick Clsarke. Charlie Lee-Potter gets better and better.
Ads: Wonderbra is the only one I recall. What does this mean?
Multi-media: I used the Internet to plan clothing for a trip to New York but the Weather Channel got it wrong and I ended up spending a fortune on rain gear*. to be full of froth – пестрить пустой болтовней