Issue

　　In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benefit.

Sample Essay

　　Anything that makes a countrys government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

　　One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nations attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

　　On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

　　One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place behind the scenes, not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent seeing is believing, quite often it is what you dont see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

　　Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

　　Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being watched by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

　　觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/

　　在許多國(guó)家，人們現(xiàn)在可以打開(kāi)電視，便可以看到政府是如何運(yùn)作的。觀看到這樣一些程序能夠幫助人們理解那些影響到其生活的問(wèn)題。電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府程序――審判，辯論，會(huì)議等不一而足――的種類(lèi)越多，則社會(huì)將會(huì)獲益更多。

　　任何能使一個(gè)國(guó)家的政府更透明的事情無(wú)疑總是一件好事情，至少在民主國(guó)家中是如此。這些社會(huì)通過(guò)得以看到他們所選舉的政府官員在做些什么而獲益匪淺。但是，如果只是籠統(tǒng)地說(shuō)政府程序轉(zhuǎn)播得越多，社會(huì)就會(huì)獲益更多，那么，這便忽視了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即有些時(shí)候，轉(zhuǎn)播得越少越好。有些類(lèi)型的程序如果進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)播，則甚至?xí)艿截?fù)面影響，使社會(huì)處于更糟糕的境地，而不是帶來(lái)任何裨益。有些類(lèi)型的政府程序應(yīng)獲得更多的電視報(bào)道，但有些應(yīng)該減少報(bào)道，以確保這些程序能恰當(dāng)?shù)剡M(jìn)行。

　　轉(zhuǎn)播所有政府程序會(huì)引發(fā)負(fù)面作用，這方面的例子是美國(guó)對(duì)所指控的謀殺者和前美式足球全國(guó)聯(lián)賽超級(jí)明星O.J.辛普遜的審判。審判全程轉(zhuǎn)播，成為媒體一大焦點(diǎn)，在整個(gè)審判進(jìn)程中吸引了全國(guó)的注意力。律師們清楚地知道，整個(gè)審判程序被轉(zhuǎn)播，他們的所作所為幾乎像電影演戲那樣。媒體的焦光燈如此窮追不舍，以致于那種馬戲團(tuán)般的氛圍甚至波及到主審法官。電視鏡頭的存在以及密集的媒體報(bào)道效果致使這場(chǎng)審判史無(wú)前例，嚴(yán)重影響到這次審判的正常進(jìn)程。參與者在鏡頭面前裝腔作勢(shì)，根本不專(zhuān)注于手頭應(yīng)做的工作。許多人會(huì)認(rèn)為，很大程度上由于電視的緣故，在這場(chǎng)特定的審判中，正義并未得到申張。

　　另一方面，有關(guān)政府日常實(shí)際工作的電視轉(zhuǎn)播能讓人們直接地深入了解政府實(shí)際上是怎樣運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的。由于電視鏡頭每天都在那里，政府官員們便變得習(xí)以為常，不再會(huì)因?yàn)樗鼈兊拇嬖诙芴蟮挠绊憽＿@樣，社會(huì)就能獲益，因?yàn)槊癖娔軌蛴H眼目睹實(shí)際所在發(fā)生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那樣藏匿在一層秘密的面紗背后，從而使人無(wú)從知曉所被選舉的官員的神秘行為。

　　被電視轉(zhuǎn)播的政府程序越多，一個(gè)社會(huì)就會(huì)變得更好，此番陳述的問(wèn)題之一是，人們可能會(huì)以為他們能目睹一切，但在實(shí)際上，電視鏡頭所捕捉到的可能只是所有發(fā)生的事情的一部分，無(wú)論有多少電視鏡頭。政府內(nèi)發(fā)生的相當(dāng)一部分事情是在幕后完成的，并不必定是在開(kāi)會(huì)場(chǎng)所眾目睽睽之下進(jìn)行的。盡管在某種程度上眼見(jiàn)為實(shí)，但在相當(dāng)多的時(shí)候，不為你所見(jiàn)的事情才起著決定性的作用。純粹去電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府的各項(xiàng)程序，當(dāng)然能增進(jìn)理解，但要充分理解某一過(guò)程，則人們須實(shí)際上積極地參與到這一過(guò)程中來(lái)。

　　政府程序電視轉(zhuǎn)播越多越好，這一陳述的另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，這一陳述認(rèn)為當(dāng)政府程序被轉(zhuǎn)播時(shí)，人們實(shí)際上正觀看著這些程序。美國(guó)有一個(gè)電視，每天播放國(guó)會(huì)程序，但看這一的人寥寥無(wú)幾。只有當(dāng)某些重大問(wèn)題需要進(jìn)行辨論或進(jìn)行投票時(shí)，才會(huì)有大量的人觀看這一。純粹電視播放政府程序并不會(huì)影響到社會(huì)，除非社會(huì)觀看這些事件。

　　社會(huì)無(wú)疑能得益于電視對(duì)某些政府程序的報(bào)道。親眼目睹民選官員處理政府事務(wù)，能帶來(lái)一個(gè)額外的理解因素，來(lái)弄清政府的內(nèi)在運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)制。當(dāng)政治家們被置于電視鏡頭的注視時(shí)，可以使其對(duì)其行為負(fù)責(zé)。他們?cè)谔幚砉娛聞?wù)時(shí)再也無(wú)法隱名埋姓。但政府程序并非應(yīng)該全部進(jìn)行電視轉(zhuǎn)播。有些時(shí)候，為了確保能作出正確的決策，隱秘應(yīng)成為一種絕對(duì)的要求。

　　Issue

　　In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benefit.

Sample Essay

　　Anything that makes a countrys government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

　　One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nations attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

　　On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

　　One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place behind the scenes, not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent seeing is believing, quite often it is what you dont see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

　　Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

　　Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being watched by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

　　觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/

　　在許多國(guó)家，人們現(xiàn)在可以打開(kāi)電視，便可以看到政府是如何運(yùn)作的。觀看到這樣一些程序能夠幫助人們理解那些影響到其生活的問(wèn)題。電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府程序――審判，辯論，會(huì)議等不一而足――的種類(lèi)越多，則社會(huì)將會(huì)獲益更多。

　　任何能使一個(gè)國(guó)家的政府更透明的事情無(wú)疑總是一件好事情，至少在民主國(guó)家中是如此。這些社會(huì)通過(guò)得以看到他們所選舉的政府官員在做些什么而獲益匪淺。但是，如果只是籠統(tǒng)地說(shuō)政府程序轉(zhuǎn)播得越多，社會(huì)就會(huì)獲益更多，那么，這便忽視了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即有些時(shí)候，轉(zhuǎn)播得越少越好。有些類(lèi)型的程序如果進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)播，則甚至?xí)艿截?fù)面影響，使社會(huì)處于更糟糕的境地，而不是帶來(lái)任何裨益。有些類(lèi)型的政府程序應(yīng)獲得更多的電視報(bào)道，但有些應(yīng)該減少報(bào)道，以確保這些程序能恰當(dāng)?shù)剡M(jìn)行。

　　轉(zhuǎn)播所有政府程序會(huì)引發(fā)負(fù)面作用，這方面的例子是美國(guó)對(duì)所指控的謀殺者和前美式足球全國(guó)聯(lián)賽超級(jí)明星O.J.辛普遜的審判。審判全程轉(zhuǎn)播，成為媒體一大焦點(diǎn)，在整個(gè)審判進(jìn)程中吸引了全國(guó)的注意力。律師們清楚地知道，整個(gè)審判程序被轉(zhuǎn)播，他們的所作所為幾乎像電影演戲那樣。媒體的焦光燈如此窮追不舍，以致于那種馬戲團(tuán)般的氛圍甚至波及到主審法官。電視鏡頭的存在以及密集的媒體報(bào)道效果致使這場(chǎng)審判史無(wú)前例，嚴(yán)重影響到這次審判的正常進(jìn)程。參與者在鏡頭面前裝腔作勢(shì)，根本不專(zhuān)注于手頭應(yīng)做的工作。許多人會(huì)認(rèn)為，很大程度上由于電視的緣故，在這場(chǎng)特定的審判中，正義并未得到申張。

　　另一方面，有關(guān)政府日常實(shí)際工作的電視轉(zhuǎn)播能讓人們直接地深入了解政府實(shí)際上是怎樣運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的。由于電視鏡頭每天都在那里，政府官員們便變得習(xí)以為常，不再會(huì)因?yàn)樗鼈兊拇嬖诙芴蟮挠绊憽＿@樣，社會(huì)就能獲益，因?yàn)槊癖娔軌蛴H眼目睹實(shí)際所在發(fā)生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那樣藏匿在一層秘密的面紗背后，從而使人無(wú)從知曉所被選舉的官員的神秘行為。

　　被電視轉(zhuǎn)播的政府程序越多，一個(gè)社會(huì)就會(huì)變得更好，此番陳述的問(wèn)題之一是，人們可能會(huì)以為他們能目睹一切，但在實(shí)際上，電視鏡頭所捕捉到的可能只是所有發(fā)生的事情的一部分，無(wú)論有多少電視鏡頭。政府內(nèi)發(fā)生的相當(dāng)一部分事情是在幕后完成的，并不必定是在開(kāi)會(huì)場(chǎng)所眾目睽睽之下進(jìn)行的。盡管在某種程度上眼見(jiàn)為實(shí)，但在相當(dāng)多的時(shí)候，不為你所見(jiàn)的事情才起著決定性的作用。純粹去電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府的各項(xiàng)程序，當(dāng)然能增進(jìn)理解，但要充分理解某一過(guò)程，則人們須實(shí)際上積極地參與到這一過(guò)程中來(lái)。

　　政府程序電視轉(zhuǎn)播越多越好，這一陳述的另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，這一陳述認(rèn)為當(dāng)政府程序被轉(zhuǎn)播時(shí)，人們實(shí)際上正觀看著這些程序。美國(guó)有一個(gè)電視，每天播放國(guó)會(huì)程序，但看這一的人寥寥無(wú)幾。只有當(dāng)某些重大問(wèn)題需要進(jìn)行辨論或進(jìn)行投票時(shí)，才會(huì)有大量的人觀看這一。純粹電視播放政府程序并不會(huì)影響到社會(huì)，除非社會(huì)觀看這些事件。

　　社會(huì)無(wú)疑能得益于電視對(duì)某些政府程序的報(bào)道。親眼目睹民選官員處理政府事務(wù)，能帶來(lái)一個(gè)額外的理解因素，來(lái)弄清政府的內(nèi)在運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)制。當(dāng)政治家們被置于電視鏡頭的注視時(shí)，可以使其對(duì)其行為負(fù)責(zé)。他們?cè)谔幚砉娛聞?wù)時(shí)再也無(wú)法隱名埋姓。但政府程序并非應(yīng)該全部進(jìn)行電視轉(zhuǎn)播。有些時(shí)候，為了確保能作出正確的決策，隱秘應(yīng)成為一種絕對(duì)的要求。