為了幫助廣大考生順利通過口譯筆譯考試，幫考網(wǎng)為大家分享了一些口譯筆譯相關(guān)內(nèi)容，希望大家每天堅持練習(xí)，積極備考。

Publish, perish, protest

Libel law in Englａｎｄ　is too expensive and restricts free speech. But journalistic dirty tricks are a disgrace and self-regulation of the media isn’t working properly. So the rules need lots of tweaks ａｎｄ　a couple of big changes. Those are the conclusions of a much-awaited parliamentary committee report on the British press.

It makes uncomfortable reading fｏｒmany. But the sharpest criticism was reserved fｏｒthe News of the World, a tabloid that is Britain’s best-selling Sunday newspaper; its owner, Rupert Murdoch’s News International; ａｎｄ　its practice of stealing messages from the voice mailboxes of prominent people, including members of the royal family. A reporter, Clive Goodman, was jailed fｏｒfour months fｏｒthe offence, later receiving a generous pay-off from his erstwhile employer fｏｒ“unfair dismissal”.

The report says the number of phones hacked must have been far bigger than the handful admitted by the company, ａｎｄ　calls it “inconceivable” that nobody else knew what was going on. It criticises the “collective amnesia” of the company’s witnesses ａｎｄ　their “deliberate obfuscation” (some refused to give evidence; others said things that the MPs implied were untrue). But the report makes only indirect criticism of Andy Coulson, then the paper’s editｏｒａｎｄ　now a close adviser to the Conservative leader, David Cameron. In response, News International rejected the allegations, accused the MPs of bias ａｎｄ　said they had produced nothing new. Calls fｏｒa further inquiry are growing.

The report gives other journalistic misconduct a savaging too, especially the “abysmal” standards of reporting in the frenzy surrounding Kate ａｎｄ　Gerry McCann, the parents of a British child who went missing in Portugal in 2007. (The McCanns later won hefty libel damages from newspapers that wrongly blamed them fｏｒabducting their own daughter.) The MPs also note that the McCanns were failed by the Press Complaints Commission, a self-regulatory body which is meant to deal with such conduct.

The committee’s original aim was to focus on media misbehaviour. But its investigation has ranged more widely. The report has plenty of comfort fｏｒmore serious-minded journalists, as well as fｏｒthe campaigning groups, scientists ａｎｄ　others who worry about the chilling effect of libel law on press freedom. In English libel law (Scotland’s is different), the fact that the public has an interest in knowing about something offers only a limited defence against a charge of libel. (This is not unlike the rest of Europe, but it is shockingly different fｏｒAmericans used to the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.) When sued, journalists usually have to prove that what they wrote was right, fair ｏｒat least conscientiously reported. That can be costly (even a preliminary defence can easily exceed ￡100,000). Foreigners may sue other foreigners, as long as they can show that their reputation was damaged in England.

Many lawyers ａｎｄ　judges have dismissed media campaigns fｏｒchanges in the law as self-interested. The committee rejects sweeping proposals fｏｒreform, such as statutory caps on the size of libel damages. But it does suggest that the Ministry of Justice, which is examining the libel law, make some important changes.

One is reversing the burden of proof for corporate claimants: if they want to sue fｏｒlibel, they would have to show that the published material actually damaged their business. That could help people such as Simon Singh, a science writer facing a lawsuit from the chiropractors’ trade body fｏｒcalling their treatments “bogus”. The MPs also want to discourage “libel tourism” by requiring a claimant who is not based in Britain to produce a very solid argument as to why the case needs to be brought there.

As fｏｒthe cost of libel actions, which can be ruinous to all but the biggest defendants, the MPs have few specific ideas, though they appeal to lawyers’ sense of responsibility. That is about as realistic as urging tabloid journalists to act ethically.

詞句筆記：

chiropractor：脊柱按摩師

tweak：n.調(diào)整

erstwhile：從前的

amnesia：健忘癥

obfuscation：困惑

misconduct：n.行為不端

abysmal：深不可測的

bogus：假的，偽造的

看到這里小伙伴們是否有所收獲呢？希望幫考網(wǎng)為大家分享的內(nèi)容能給大家?guī)韼椭罄m(xù)也可以多關(guān)注幫考網(wǎng)，這里有更多的考試資訊，你想知道的都在這！