2008年文登春季詞匯班精彩文篇推薦(三)第三篇

TV Could Nourish Minds and Hearts

(1) Despite questions of the motivation behind them, the attacks by the President and the Vice President on the moral content of television entertainment have found an echo in the chambers of the American soul. Many who reject the ______ still accept the message. They do not like the moral tone of American TV. In our society only the human family surpasses television in its capacity to communicate values, provide role models, form con-sciences and motivate human behavior. Few educators, church leaders or politicians possess the moral influence of those who create the nation’s entertainment.

(2) Every good story will not only captivate its viewers but also give them some insight into what it means to be a human being. By so doing, it can help them grow into the deeply centered, sovereignty free, joyously lov-ing human beings God made them to be. Meaning, freedom and love — the supreme human values. And this is the kind of human enrichment the American viewing public has a right to expect from those who make its en-tertainment.

(3) It is not a question of entertainment or enrichment. These are complementary concerns and presuppose each other. The story that entertains without enriching is superficial and escapist. The story that enriches with-out entertaining is simply dull. The story that does both is a delight.

(4) Is that what the American viewing public is getting? Perhaps 10% of prime-time network programming is a happy combination of entertainment and enrichment. I think immediately of dramas like I’ll Fly Away and Life Goes On or comedies like Brooklyn Bridge and The Wonder Years. There used to be television movies rich in human values, but they have now become an endangered species. Sleaze and mayhem?. Murder off the front page. The woman in jeopardy?. Is there too much sex on American TV? Not necessarily. Sex is a beautiful, even holy, part of human life, a unique way for husband and wife to express their love. No doubt there is too much dishonest sex on TV. How often do we see the aching emptiness, the joyless despair that so often follows sex without commitment? And certainly there is too much violence. It desensitizes its viewers to the horrors of ac-tual violence and implies that it is an effective way to resolve conflict. I seldom see the dehumanization that violence produces, not only in its victims, but also in its criminals. And I never see the nonviolent alternative — the way of dialogue and love — explored. Jesus has much to teach us here. So do Gandhi and Martin Lu-ther King. Ninety-four percent of the American people believe in God; 41% go to church on any given Sunday. But you’d never know it by watching American TV. We seldom see TV characters reach for God or fight with Him, despite the theatricality latent in their doing so. Why is that? I find television too much concerned with what people have and too little concerned with who they are, very concerned with taking care of No. 1 and not at all concerned with sharing themselves with other people. All too often it tells us the half truth we want to hear rather than the whole truth we need to hear.

(5) Why is television not more fully realizing its ______ potential? Is the creative community at fault? Par-tially. But not primarily. I have lived and worked in that community for 32 years, as both priest and producer. As a group, these people are not the sex-crazed egomaniacs of popular legend. Most of them love their spouses, dote on? their children and hunger after God. They have values. In fact, in Hollywood in recent months, audi-ence enrichment has become the in thing. ABC, CBS and NBC have all held workshops on it for their pro-gramming executives. A coalition of media companies has endowed? the Humanitas Prize so that it can recog-nize and celebrate those who accomplish it. And during the school year, an average of 50 writers spend a Satur-day a month in a church basement discussing the best way to accomplish it All before the Vice President’s mis-guided lambasting of Murphy Brown.

(6) The problem with American TV is not the lack of storytellers of conscience but the commercial system within which they have to operate. Television in the U.S. is a business. In the past, the business side has been balanced by a commitment to public service. But in recent years the fragmentation of the mass audience, huge interest payments and skyrocketing production costs have combined with the FCC’s resignation of its responsi-bility to protect the common good to produce an almost total preoccupation with the bottom line. The networks are struggling to survive. And like most business in that situation, they make only what they feel the public will buy. And that, the statistics seem to indicate, is mindless, heartless, escapist fare. If we are dissatisfied with the moral content of what we are invited to watch, I think we should begin by examining our own consciences. When we tune in, are we ready to plunge into reality, so as to extract its meaning, or are we hoping to escape into a sedated world of illusion? And if church leaders want to elevate the quality of the country’s entertainment, they should forget about boycotts, production codes and censorship?. They should work at educating their peo-ple in media literacy and at mobilizing them to support quality shows in huge numbers.

(7) That is the only sure way to improve the moral content of America’s entertainment.

【參考譯文】電視可以滋養(yǎng)思想與心靈

（作者凱瑟神父是電視節(jié)目《洞察》與《羅米洛》的制作人，也是“人道獎(jiǎng)”機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)人）

(1)雖然他們的動(dòng)機(jī)受到質(zhì)疑，可是總統(tǒng)、副總統(tǒng)對電視娛樂節(jié)目的道德內(nèi)涵所做的攻擊，已在美國人靈魂的殿堂中引起回響。許多人對發(fā)言者并不認(rèn)同，可是仍然認(rèn)同他們的訊息。他們都不喜歡美國電視節(jié)目的道德腔調(diào)。在我們的社會(huì)中，論及傳達(dá)價(jià)值觀、提供角色典范、形成良知與啟發(fā)行為等方面，電視的影響力大概只有家庭能出其右。教育家、宗教領(lǐng)袖或政治領(lǐng)袖當(dāng)中也很少有人的道德影響力能超過那些創(chuàng)造娛樂節(jié)目的人。

(2)凡是好節(jié)目，不僅能牢牢抓住觀眾，也要能啟發(fā)觀眾了解做人的意義。這樣的節(jié)目可以幫助人們成長，成為上帝創(chuàng)造人的本來面目：沉穩(wěn)、獨(dú)立自由、充滿喜樂與愛。意義、自由與愛——這些就是最高的人性價(jià)值。美國觀眾有權(quán)要求娛樂節(jié)目的制作者提供這種人性的養(yǎng)料。

(3) 問題不在于娛樂與教化之間的抉擇。這兩樣是互補(bǔ)的，單獨(dú)都無法成立。只有娛樂而沒有教化的故事太膚淺，而且逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)。只有教化而沒有娛樂的故事就是枯燥乏味。兩者兼具的故事會(huì)讓人驚喜。

(4) 美國觀眾看到的是這樣的故事嗎？各大電視網(wǎng)黃金時(shí)段的節(jié)目大概有10%是娛樂與教化的巧妙結(jié)合。我腦中想到的是像這些戲：《我要高飛》、《人生還要繼續(xù)》，還有一些喜劇，像《布魯克林大橋》和《奇跡年代》。從前的電視影片有些是富有人性價(jià)值的，可是現(xiàn)在都成了稀有品種了。庸俗與暴力、頭條新聞的謀殺案、婦女遇險(xiǎn)。美國電視是否色情泛濫？也不一定。性是人生中美麗的，甚至神圣的一部分，是夫婦之間示愛的一種獨(dú)特方式。電視上無疑的有太多不誠實(shí)的性。沒有精神承諾的性，事后痛苦的空虛、無味的絕望，這方面的描述在電視上見到得太少了。電視上的暴力誠然是太多了。暴力鏡頭讓觀眾對真實(shí)暴力的恐怖產(chǎn)生了麻痹，而且它暗示暴力是解決沖突的有效途徑。我很少看到電視節(jié)目描寫暴力的非人化結(jié)果：不只是對受害者，更是對施暴者而言。而且從來看不到探討非暴力的選擇——像是對話與愛。這方面耶穌可以引導(dǎo)我們的地方很多。甘地和馬丁?路德? 金博士亦然。美國有94% 的人信仰神，每個(gè)禮拜天也有41%的人上教堂，可是看美國電視節(jié)目絕對猜不到。我們很少看到電視劇中的人物嘗試與神溝通或和神奮斗，雖然這方面的主題有很大的戲劇性潛藏其中。為什么？我覺得電視節(jié)目太關(guān)切人們擁有的，太不關(guān)心人的本質(zhì)；相當(dāng)關(guān)切人如何照顧自己，完全不關(guān)心如何將自我與別人分享。電視往往告訴我們的是我們要聽的那一半的真理，而不是我們該聽的全部的真理。

(5) 電視為什么不能更完整地實(shí)現(xiàn)它促進(jìn)人性的潛力？是否該歸咎于創(chuàng)作電視節(jié)目的這圈子？有一部分是的，但不是主要的部分。我在這個(gè)圈子生活、工作有32年了，我既是神父也是制作人。這個(gè)圈子的人整體來說并不是一般人傳說的那種縱欲過度的自大狂。其中大部分都愛配偶、疼小孩、內(nèi)心渴求上帝。他們是有人生價(jià)值的一批人。事實(shí)上，這幾個(gè)月來，好萊塢正在流行如何教化觀眾。美國、哥倫比亞與國家這三大電視網(wǎng)都舉辦研討會(huì)，召集節(jié)目部主管來談這個(gè)問題。一些媒體公司也集合起來出資損助“人道獎(jiǎng)”，以褒揚(yáng)、獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)達(dá)到教化觀眾目標(biāo)的節(jié)目。本學(xué)年中，每個(gè)月有一個(gè)星期六，平均有50位作家聚集在一個(gè)教堂的地下室，討論如何達(dá)成這個(gè)目標(biāo)。這一切都在副總統(tǒng)對《風(fēng)云女郎》節(jié)目的無妄抨擊之前。

(6) 美國電視的問題不是在于缺乏有良心的節(jié)目工作者，而是在于他們不得不在其中工作的商業(yè)體系。美國的電視是一門生意。從前的生意面還有公共服務(wù)這方面的承諾來加以平衡。近年來，大眾傳播的聽眾群被瓜分、利息支出龐大、制作成本高漲，再加上聯(lián)邦通訊委員會(huì)放棄了維護(hù)公益的職責(zé)，于是造成電視節(jié)目幾乎完全以盈虧為依歸。各大電視網(wǎng)在掙扎求生。和一般商家處于危機(jī)時(shí)一樣，他們也只愿生產(chǎn)他們認(rèn)為有人買的東西。而從統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字上看，觀眾要的似乎是沒有大腦、沒有良心、逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)的節(jié)目。如果我們對電視公司招待我們觀賞的節(jié)目，不滿它的道德內(nèi)涵，我想我們首先該反省一下自己的內(nèi)心。 我們打開電視，是打算投入現(xiàn)實(shí)，以粹取其意義，還是希望逃避到一個(gè)加了鎮(zhèn)定劑的虛幻世界？如果宗教領(lǐng)袖想要提升美國娛樂的品質(zhì)，不要再搞抵制、制作準(zhǔn)則或電檢制度，應(yīng)該致力于教育人民了解媒體基礎(chǔ)知識，并動(dòng)員他們大批地出來支持高品質(zhì)的節(jié)目。

(7)要改進(jìn)美國娛樂節(jié)目的道德內(nèi)涵，這是唯一可靠的辦法。