【美國媒體操控研究】操控國民對國際新聞信息的獲取

【原文題目】Media in the United States(part 2)：Uninformed population means harmful policies can go unaccountable
 【中文題目】美國的媒體（第二部分）：民眾信息匱乏意味著實行有害政策無需負責
 【來      源】http://www.globalissues.org/article/163/media-in-the-united-states#globalissues-org
 【原文作者】Anup Shah
 【譯      者】蘆葦
 【校      對】車幹
【聲      明】譯文為原創，轉載務必注明譯者及出處“獨家網dooo.cc”。
 【摘      要】你以為美國是新聞自由的？你以為美國人想知道什么就能知道什么？那你就錯了。獨家網為你奉獻美國媒體研究系列文章。本期：為何美國的錯誤政策能夠獲得通過和執行？因為美國的媒體操控與國家公關和宣傳如此強大，以至于美國人對國際事件獲取的信息匱乏，成為十足的國際新聞“傻子”。何為民主？人民要說的算，而且要在充分獲取信息的情況下說的算。美國人基于匱乏與錯誤信息基礎上的選舉投票并非民主。
 【譯      文】
        美國的許多政策，尤其是外交政策，備受國際、美國社會內部的詬病。有人擔憂美國因此而使自己與世界上其他國家疏遠。下面這段摘錄暗示了媒體對于熱點問題的呈現能夠影響到美國外交政策的建設性評論。

        “只有在美國，你才能看到世界渴望美國來領導的報道?！币晃荒涿挠饨桓吖僮罱缡窃u論道，“其他人讀到的美國都是它的極度傲慢和單邊主義。
        ——摘自喬納森·波瓦，《處在與世界疏遠危機中的美國》，1999年3月3日

        上面這個摘錄同時也概括說明了國際社會是如何看待美國的，以及美國的行為在國內是如何被解讀的。然而，國際社會從完全不同的角度來解讀美國的行動也有其正當的理由。 

        美國媒體對國際新聞報道少之又少。正如媒體頻道（Media Channel）和赫芬頓郵報所指出的：皮尤研究中心最近對美國新聞業的調查結果顯示，國際新聞的報道下降速度遠超過其他任何話題。參與2007年調查的新聞編輯中有64%說他們的報紙已經減少了國際新聞的版幅。皮尤研究中心的報告指出，“嚴格說來，美國媒體在2007年報道的不是整個世界。去年，除了伊拉克，只對兩個國家進行了很多報道——伊朗和巴基斯坦?！?/p>

        不報道全球熱點問題的現狀令人堪憂，因為這最終會導致眾多美國人視野狹窄，對許多重要的國際問題沒有認識。在這種狀況下，宣傳就比較容易了，因為不管宣傳人員說了什么，其他人都很難去質疑他，而且都認為宣傳說的是真的。

        大多數美國人仍然是從電視上獲取新聞，但是電視上的新聞有限，電視快節奏和簡明扼要的特點降低了新聞的廣度和深度并忽略了本需要介紹的背景。相比之下，互聯網已經超過傳統的報紙，成為主要的新聞傳播途徑，但仍缺乏新聞的多樣性。許多互聯網站上的內容還是來自于傳統渠道，通常是來自那些勉強茍活的報紙公司和媒體機構。

        注意，盡管互聯網可能即將超過傳統報紙成為人們獲取信息的來源，但電視新聞還是占據著主導地位：三分之二的美國人是從電視上獲取新聞的。

        皮尤研究中心的大眾與媒體研究中心（People & the Press）在其他民意調查和研究小組中做的調查顯示，大約三分之二的普通民眾以電視作為獲取國內、國際新聞的主要媒介，是依賴報紙獲取新聞的人數的兩倍多，比日益增長的依靠互聯網獲取信息的人數多一半。
        ——吉姆·羅比，《“阿拉伯之春”占據了電視播出的國際新聞》，國際新聞社，2012年1月2日

        伊拉克戰爭開始后一年，即2004年3月，皮尤研究中心的皮尤全球態度項目為大眾與媒體研究中心（ People & the Press）組織了一次大規模投票。投票在多國進行，包括西歐國家、穆斯林國家。結果顯示，這些國家都越來越不信任美國，尤其是不信任總統喬治·布什。

        而美國的受訪者與世界上其他國家的受訪者在許多問題上都存在較大的分歧，包括在其關鍵盟友——英國那里的受訪者。正如1999年外交官在上文提到的，這項調查也指出了61%-84%的國外受訪者認為美國外交政策的動機是自私的，然而70%的美國國內受訪者則認為他們的外交政策也考慮了其他國家的意見的。毫不夸張地說，這種觀念上的差異是很大的?？墒菫槭裁磿羞@樣的鴻溝呢？

        政治學助理教授南?！に怪Z博士將她之前的工作描述成為美國新聞署的“傳道者”。另外，在一次采訪中她還講述了美國人和世界上其他人是怎樣看待美國媒體的：

        公共外交是傳道的一種委婉說法。盡管世界上的其他地方根據廣告、全球覆蓋率以及公關行業認為美國是一個最擅長宣傳的國家，但我們美國自己并不認為自己是一個善于做宣傳的國家。因為在美國公關專家的數量遠遠多于新聞記者。所以對美國國內和國外做宣揚美國的廣告、宣傳促銷以及傳播美國信息的工作已經有著悠久的歷史。
        ——南希.斯諾博士，《美國新聞署幕后的傳媒公司》，游擊隊新聞網（Guerilla News Network）

        澳大利亞記者約翰·皮格爾也捕捉到了這一點。早在蘇聯解體以前，一群到美國旅行的記者在讀過美國的報紙、看過美國的電視后吃驚地發現，幾乎所有關于重大事件的觀點都是一樣的。其中一位記者說：“在我國，要想這樣（所有重大事件新聞報道都高度一致），我們需要獨裁，我們要禁錮民眾，剔除了他們的“利爪”。你這里哪一樣都沒有，那美國是如何辦到的呢？這其中的秘密何在？”
        ——約翰·皮格爾，《在世界上最自由的新聞界，人性化的報道源于其是否有利于美國權威》，新政治家（New Statesman），2001年2月20日。

        盡管許多國家（即使并非全部）在某種程度上限制信息的傳播，可是像美國這樣的在國際舞臺上已經很有影響力的國家也這樣限制信息傳播就很讓人費解。美國人是為世界上最強大的國家制定政策的人，而這些政策的制訂對國際上的諸多方面都會產生深遠的影響。因此，美國人需要接受客觀的報道。

        運作良好的民主最主要的是要讓民眾在獲取信息充分的基礎上做出選擇和決定。然而，正如2000年時的大選所見證的那樣，媒體報道和論述中都出現了很多錯誤。

        這種主流媒體與這個國家政治制度的這種不恰當關系讓選民們缺乏相關信息，他們只能任由那些媒體無意義甚至更糟的政府宣傳的擺布。這實際上已經侵蝕了民主的基本要求，即管理者不僅要獲得被管理者的贊同，而且要讓被管理者在獲取信息充分的情況下贊同。
        ——本·百格蒂凱，《媒體壟斷》（第六版）第192頁，烽火出版社，2000年。

        （注意，上述摘錄中的書最早是在1983年出版的，但是仍然與當今時事緊密相關，可適用于2000年的美國大選以及與之相關的其他爭論）。

 【原       文】
 Many US policies, especially foreign policies, have come under much sharp criticism from around the world as well as from various segments within American society. As a result, some fear that they are running the risk of alienating themselves from the rest of the world. A revealing quote hints that media portrayal of issues can affect the constructive criticism of American foreign policy:
     “One reads about the world’s desire for American leadership only in the United States”, one anonymous well-placed British diplomat recently observed, “Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism.”
 — Jonathan Power, America is in Danger of Alienating the World, March 3, 1999
    
 The quote above also summarizes how America is viewed in the international community and how some of their actions are portrayed in the United States. Yet, the international community, often for very valid reasons, sees America’s actions differently.
     International news coverage from US media is very poor. As noted by the Media Channel and Huffington Post, “According to the Pew Research Center’s recent study of American journalism, coverage of international events is declining more than any other subject. In the study of 2007, 64% of participating newspaper editors said their papers had reduced the space for international news. ‘In a strict sense, the American media did not in 2007 cover the world,’ says the Pew report. Beyond Iraq, only two countries received notable coverage last year — Iran and Pakistan.”
    
 This non-coverage of global issues is worrying because so many American citizens end up getting a narrow view of many important world issues. In such a situation, it is easier for propagandists to say things that are harder to question and seem real.
    
 The majority of US citizens still get their news from television, where limited headlines and sound-bites reduce the breadth, depth and context available. And while the Internet has surpassed traditional newspapers as a prime source of news, the diversity of news is still small; a lot of content for Internet sites come from a few traditional sources, usually those working in struggling newspaper companies and media outlets.
    
 As a side note, although the Internet may be surpassing traditional newspapers as information sources, television news still dominates; some 2/3rds of Americans get their news from TV:
    
 Surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press among other polling and research groups show that about two-thirds of the general public cite television as their main source for national and international news, more than twice the number of people who rely on newspapers, and about 50 percent more than the growing number of U.S. residents who rely on the Internet (43 percent).
 — Jim Lobe, “Arab Spring” Dominated TV Foreign News in 2011, Inter Press Service, January 2, 2012
    
 A year after the war on Iraq had started, March 2004 saw a large poll released by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (GAP) from the Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press. It looked at views in a number of countries, including some in western Europe, and some in Muslim countries, and found in all of them a growing mistrust of the United States, particularly President George Bush.
    
 On many issues there was a wide gap between respondents in the U.S. versus respondents elsewhere, including key ally, Britain. And as the diplomat noted above in 1999, this poll also noted that 61 to 84% of respondents in other countries found the U.S. motives in foreign policy to be self-interested, while 70% of respondents in the United States thought their country did take other’s views into account. This divide in perceptions is large to say the least. But why is there such a gap?
    
 Dr. Nancy Snow, an assistant professor of political science describes one of her previous jobs as being a “propagandist” for the U.S. Information Agency. In an interview, she also describes how Americans and the rest of the world often view the American media:
    
 Public diplomacy is a euphemism for propaganda. In the United States, we don’t think of ourselves as a country that propagandizes, even though to the rest of the world we are seen as really the most propagandistic nation in terms of our advertising, in terms of our global reach, our public relations industry—we have more public relations professionals and consultants in the United States than we do news reporters. So there’s an entire history of advertising, promoting, and getting across the message of America both within and also outside of the United States.
 — Dr. Nancy Snow, Propaganda Inc.: Behind the curtain at the U.S.I.A., an Interview with Guerilla News Network
    
 Australian journalist John Pilger also captures this very well:
 Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. “In our country,” said one of them, “to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What’s the secret?”
 — John Pilger, In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its usefulness to US power, New Statesman, 20 February, 2001
    
 While many countries—if not all—in some way suppress/distort information to some degree, the fact that a country as influential in the international arena such as the United States is also doing it is very disturbing. The people of this nation are the ones that can help shape the policies of the most powerful nation, thereby affecting many events around the world. For that to happen, they need to be able to receive objective reporting.
    
 An integral part of a functioning democracy is that people are able to make informed choices and decisions. However, as the 2000 Election testified, there has been much amiss with the media coverage and discourse in general.
    
 The inappropriate fit between the country’s major media and the country’s political system has starved voters of relevant information, leaving them at the mercy of paid political propaganda that is close to meaningless and often worse. It has eroded the central requirement of a democracy that those who are governed give not only their consent but their informed consent.
 — Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), p. 192.
    
 (Note that in the above quote, the book was originally published in 1983, but is still relevant to today and applicable to the 2000 Elections in the United States and the various controversies that accompanied it.)

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號