- 最后登录
- 2010-11-7
- 在线时间
- 215 小时
- 寄托币
- 496
- 声望
- 33
- 注册时间
- 2009-12-8
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 222
- UID
- 2736030
- 声望
- 33
- 寄托币
- 496
- 注册时间
- 2009-12-8
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
5# yogurt4
原来在这里,哈哈。。谢谢前辈。。
我重新写了一遍,你看看。。我让我的一位老师帮我改了,蓝色的地方是我犯错(中国人常错的吧,估计)的地方,然后我改了逻辑顺序一些,没有了imagination,你看看
TOPIC: ISSUE7 - "The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-6-24
On the eve of the 20th century, the whole world has accelerated the speed of transmitting and sharing information with the help of emerging media. From radio to television, from kinetoscope to video camera, every new medium holds invincible power to revolutionize former communication pattern. And, the video camera, as the most persuasive transmission to date, extended the meaning of “seeing is believing” to a broader scope, in which incidents that happened in the past could be stored for later review. This new form of documentation, as claimed from the argument, has much more strength than the written record on depicting incidents with relatively objective evidence. Yet what were claimed as strengths could be, viewing from different angle, the (No “the”, right ?) weaknesses. And the (No “The”, right?) reasons to justify my argument will be presented as follows.
Accurately and vividly as it may perform, the video camera does have certain merits which other kinds of instrument can’t compare with it. By providing us with the most direct visual and audio presentation, the video camera can be considered as an unprecedented device for ordinary people to make a record of their daily lives. It also empowers people to film what they see and what they want to share with others, irrespective of time and place. To certain degree, the video camera is a blessing. The availability of video camera to ordinary people makes scrutinizing authority’s misbehaviors and misleading much easier and evidence-based. During the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, thousands of students fought against the tyranny of government and sadly were repressed by tanks and guns. Without the help of the video camera, the following generations could barely grasp as much information as what we have today if this event were only documented by words. The written words describing how people were killed were less direct than the video camera displaying tanks driving over the young students’ bodies.
Yet a conclusion that video camera is unquestionably superior to written record seems hasty and ill-conceived. Of course, the video camera can present events colorfully and vividly, but it does not have the function of interpretation. In this data deluge world, the least thing we lack is information, and producing information has become such an easy job that everyone can create and share with others. But how many people can find diamond among all the humdrum data? What we need may not just convincing record but analysis. Written records, luckily, wield the incredible power to interpret meanings out of different phenomena. If we just watch the videos on Tiananmen event, Jun 4th, we might want to know who these people are; why did they fight against the government, and who pulled the trigger and what happened after the event. Of course video might shed some light on some of these questions, but videos might not have the ability to elucidate the effect of this event, whereas books can give us more deep interpretations.
Media, be they written records or radios, be they film or videos, are in themselves neither superior nor inferior in the form of documentation. Just like flowers, one can never make the universal statement that rose is much better than lily, since both of them add to life’s beauty, and each of them has a specific aroma and shape to make them unique. Each medium has its own specific edge too; written documentation is proved to be the best form to present thoughts and ideas, to interpret meanings and enhance readers’ imaginations. Video camera, on the other hand, could be an authentic form of documentation to capture events for future historians to explore.
By comparing the two means of documentation, we seems to place all the fame and blame on technology, while neglecting the objectivity of messages that are carried through these forms and the creators who lie behind these media transmissions. The speaker might give us a false or veneer image so the document could be a more accurate and true reflection of what took place if it were documented by the video camera. Any new medium that seems to add to the accuracy of documentation might actually add to the inaccuracy of the document, which ironically, falls to the manipulation of special interest-groups or certain showcase projects. Images can be retouched by settings and new technology. Those who wield the video camera can decide what to shoot and what to omit. Different interest-groups might present us with opposing videos of what happened during the Tibetan riots in 2008; the Chinese government denounced the subversives in showing the injury to policemen; youtube may release other videos telling us that local policemen suppressed the minority groups with guns and weapons. Then, in the eyes of historians, the problem arises as to who is telling the truth?
For better or worse, information, both authentic and forged, could swamp anyone who wants to know something. Media, both new and old, would convey what they are told to. And we, as the receiver of information, have to be skeptical about what we see. Don’t believe all we hear and all we see might be the new motto to deal with the ‘New Media” world.
|
-
总评分: 声望 + 8
查看全部投币
|