高频ISSUE8 求拍互改

forkidUID: 2845790

The speaker regards withholding the information from the public by political leaders as a necessary, even desirable deed.  The reasons for him to hold this opinion, I suggest, may be: 1) a political leader must gain and maintain political power, while proclaiming all the information to the public might trigger various voices and hence weaken his leadership; 2) holding back the information from the public can protect the public safety and national security as well.  Is that really the case?  From my perspective, hiding the truth from the public usually leads to an even worse situation.  


It is true that a political leader should maintain a high approval rate and to strengthen the leadership of himself and the party he stands for.  However, it frequently goes to the opposite by withdrawing the information from the public.  In my view, the information, political leaders attempting to keep secret, can be briefly categorized into two kinds: 1) personal or government political scandals; 2) public interest related issues, for instance, health, security issues, and so on.

In the first case, so as to establish an ideal or even perfect public image, it seems quite natural for a political leader to cover up the scandals.  But contrary to his wishes, usually, the truth will be released to the public finally through mass media or his opponents.  Just as the saying goes, “paper can't wrap up a fire.” Results turn out to be worse, since he will be marked as a “dishonest” person. Take Clinton’s “Zip-gate”, Silvio’s “Naked-pics-gate”, and Chen Shuibian’s “family scandal” for example, the daily changing explanations recorded by the television make the political leaders like grotesque clowns rather than government officials.  

Additionally, a political leader tends to withdraw the information from the public as so to the concentrate his political power, in case triggering multiple voices on his decision. It looks reasonable at first glance, but actually the arbitrary administration is very dangerous.  U.S. politician Dianne Feinstein once said, “Many bad decisions are made by men in government because it is good for them personally to make bad public decision.” Hence, the civil supervision is critical to establish a harmony society.  Furthermore, it is not wise to underrate publics’ wisdom and judgment. Zhu geliang, a famous military genius in ancient China, failed to find effective means of protection against Army Cao, but this problem was solved by three ordinary people, just like the proverb depicts, “Two heads are better than one.” Communication with civilians could help the government find the solution as soon as possible.

Another excuse for political leaders to withhold the truth from the public is civil interest.  They usually hold the opinion that social-scale bad news will lead to public panic, or even social chaos. From my point of view, it may fit some circumstances.  However, in most cases, earlier release of the bad news can attenuate the damage. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) raged throughout China in 2003, and took away thousands of people’s lives. Medical workers died as they knew little about the fatality of SARS, while patients died because they did not went hospital immediately. This tragedy might be alleviated if the Ministor of Health spoke out the truth before the rumors and slanders spreading to the top.  “No fire, no smoke.” Only through the official channel can put down the rumors and stable the society.  A positive example comes from a famous U.S president, Franklin Roosevelt. Upon the Great Depression, many hoodwinked and anxious people withdrew all their cash from the bank and consumers' spending and investment were depressed. The American economy was about to collapse. Fortunately, Franklin Roosevelt changed the situation completely. His "fireside chats", which is considered to be amiable and talked without reservation as if in one’s family, was warmly welcome by the masses. He gave the public confidence which was of utmost significance and questions raised were answered in detail. Citizens were inspired by his tolerance and leadership and overcame the difficulties together. Even a small river can give rise to a huge flood if we block it. Therefore, effective information change between the officials and the public is vital.


In sum, though it seems beneficial for a political leader to hold back the information from the public, careful consideration will demonstrate that in the long run, hiding the facts does harm to both the politician and the nation.  

GlastiumUID: 2638821

The speaker regards withholding the information from the public by political leaders as a necessary, even desirable deed.  The reasons for him『or her』 to hold this opinion, I suggest,『为什么会有个i suggest..表示你猜？』may be: 1) a political leader must gain and maintain political power, while proclaiming all the information to the public might trigger various voices and hence weaken his leadership; 2) holding back the information from the public can protect the public safety and national security as well.  Is that really the case?  From my perspective, hiding the truth from the public usually leads to an even worse situation.  


It is true that a political leader should maintain a high approval rate and to strengthen the leadership of himself and the party he stands for.  However, it frequently goes to the opposite by withdrawing the information from the public.  In my view, the information, political leaders attempting to keep secret, can be briefly categorized into two kinds: 1) personal or government political scandals; 2) public interest related issues, for instance, health, security issues, and so on.
『感觉前两句废话太多了……』


In the first case, so as to establish an ideal or even perfect public image, it seems quite natural for a political leader to cover up the scandals.  But contrary to his wishes, usually, the truth will be released to the public finally through mass media or his opponents.  Just as the saying goes, “paper can't wrap up a fire.” Results turn out to be worse, since he will be marked as a “dishonest” person. Take Clinton’s “Zip-gate”, Silvio’s “Naked-pics-gate”, and Chen Shuibian’s “family scandal” for example, the daily changing explanations recorded by the television make the political leaders like grotesque clowns rather than government officials.  

Additionally, a political leader tends to withdraw the information from the public as so to the concentrate his political power, in case triggering multiple voices on his decision.『这一段出来的好奇怪..最好跟上一段综合一下，不然感觉找不到你综述的第一点在哪里』 It looks reasonable at first glance, but actually the arbitrary administration is very dangerous.  U.S. politician Dianne Feinstein once said, “Many bad decisions are made by men in government because it is good for them personally to make bad public decision.” Hence, the civil supervision is critical to establish a harmony『harmonious?』 society.  Furthermore, it is not wise to underrate publics’ wisdom and judgment. Zhu geliang, a famous military genius in ancient China, failed to find effective means of protection against Army Cao, but this problem was solved by three ordinary people, just like the proverb depicts, “Two heads are better than one.” Communication with civilians could help the government find the solution as soon as possible.
『这段的论述有些跳跃，综述句讲是为了巩固政治力量，接下来反驳的时候却在讲supervision的重要性？最后又跳到人民的智慧上面去了..感觉有点飘啊』

Another excuse for political leaders to withhold the truth from the public is civil interest.『呃这个才是第二点..第一段最好改一下……』  They usually hold the opinion that social-scale bad news will lead to public panic, or even social chaos『riot这里比较好吧我感觉……』. From my point of view, it may fit some circumstances.『……这句好……诡异，不知道起什么作用的』  However, in most cases, earlier release of the bad news can attenuate the damage. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)『太强了你……这都能记下来囧』 raged throughout China in 2003, and took away thousands of people’s lives. Medical workers died as they knew little about the fatality of SARS, while patients died because they did not went hospital immediately. This tragedy might be alleviated if the Ministor of Health spoke out the truth before the rumors and slanders spreading to the top.『总感觉这个原因不是很强调呢，是不是移到前面去比较好？』  “No fire, no smoke.” Only through the official channel can put down the rumors and stable the society.  A positive example comes from a famous U.S president, Franklin Roosevelt. Upon the Great Depression, many hoodwinked and anxious people withdrew all their cash from the bank and consumers' spending and investment were depressed. The American economy was about to collapse. Fortunately, Franklin Roosevelt changed the situation completely. His "fireside chats", which is considered to be amiable and talked without reservation as if in one’s family, was warmly welcome by the masses. He gave the public confidence which was of utmost significance and questions raised were answered in detail. Citizens were inspired by his tolerance and leadership and overcame the difficulties together. Even a small river can give rise to a huge flood if we block it.『……有点……多余吧……』 Therefore, effective information change between the officials and the public is vital.


In sum, though it seems beneficial for a political leader to hold back the information from the public, careful consideration will demonstrate that in the long run, 『while』 hiding the facts does harm to both the politician and the nation.  

感觉全文在堆砌事例……说理不足，几个部分连接的逻辑也有点乱。其他还好。

我的文章在这里：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1134479-1-1.html 谢谢~