issue29, 公众隐私问题。我发现这道题很难明显的支持或反对，只好采用折衷的态度

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 29 public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy.
公众人物，例如演员、政治家和运动员应该预料到人们对他们私生活的关注。当他们决定成为公众角色时，他们应该知道自己的一些隐私将被公布于众。

No other things in the world are more disputable than privacy of public figures. On the one hand, no one can justifiably deny that they have their own basic human rights, certainly including their right to privacy. On the other hand, during their course of becoming and being public figures, the enthusiastic attention from the public to their private lives makes them impossible to hide all their privacy behind the veil. Therefore, the only possible way to reconcile the benefits of the public and the public figures seems to be that both sides should make a concession to each another.  

To a large extent, it is something unavoidable to lose some of privacy when anyone strives for a role. No one can eschew this destiny, for which is determined by the professional character and nature of public figures. To run for president, for example, a candidate must actively tell the public some information about his past, his aspiration, his life experience and philosophy, and or even highly private things about his family, his characteristics, etc. in order to give the public a deep impression on him. Indeed, the more attention the candidate captures, the more possibly he will win. When the candidate does this, he/she would irresistibly stir up people’s innate curiosity to their private lives. Thus it is really a dilemma for those who seek a public role: in order to be success in their careers, they must sacrifice a certain mount of privacy. For most public figures, however, it is not a bad deal and they are consciously aware of that their gain from this deal is certain to be far more than what they lose. That is perhaps why so many people would like to run the risk of losing privacy to ferociously compete for a public role.

Ironically, despite their complaints about the over intense public scrutiny, many public figures, who seek for a sudden start-up or try to maintain their ever-decreasing fame, even purposely divulge some of their sensational privacy in order to grasp the attention of the public and thus enhance their “hot” degree. This purely commercial means can be seen in many areas, particularly in the area of popular music or movies. Either in China or in western societies, there are many actors who become popular by this convenient way. Obviously, in this situation it is the public that is being utilized or even being fooled, and the common people are the victims. If these “successful” figures ultimately suffer from what they have done, no others should they complain and it is just what they should face.  

Though any public role is certainly susceptible to the public scrutiny, no one can deny that he/she is just common people like you and me, they still having their right entitled by laws to privacy. Maybe at many times it is very difficult to determine whether the public’s curiosity violates their right to privacy, more or less out society as a whole should say and do something in protecting the basic right of public figures. The public curiosity has indirectly murdered Princess Diana when she tried to break away from the media cameras into her privacy. Do we expect another tragedy of Princess Diana by reason of our curiosity? Moreover, there are also many public figures, Michael Jordan or Bill Gates for instance, who succeeded primarily for their excellent talent in some fields, rather than on their intended struggle for a public figure. For these types of public figures, if they are unwilling to open their privacy to the public, what is our justification for violating their privacy?  In this sense, the public should also control its curiosity, paying more attention to the public aspects of these roles, rather than the private ones.

In so far as anyone seeks for a public role, he/she is certain to lose some of privacy. But the society as a whole should take some measures to ensure public figures’ basic rights not to be severely and casually violated. Some compromise is necessary!  (672 words)

apple670UID: 133187

恩，我想的观点和你差不多
是不是折中的写法就不好呢？

gteryyUID: 114434

其实任何问题都是有两面性的，这点我非常同意。

但是所谓要观点鲜明，就是要你突出其中一方面，而淡化或者掩盖另一方面而已。你不提到，并不等于你说错了，明白吗？

apple670UID: 133187

恩，谢谢GTERRY：）

happyman2000UID: 136936

高度赞同gteryy 大mm的意见！

雨&彩虹UID: 132532

演员，运动员之所以受到关注是因为人们在他们身上注入了自身的理想，期望， 在他们身上实在自己没有机会实现的梦想。但是他们的私生活，如果没有违背社会道德，实际上是没有必要对公众公开的。

但是政治家是不同的，他做为PUBLIC SERVANT，其一举一动，一言一行都代表了国家的形象，政党的利益。 所以CLINTON GG的诽文才被炒做的那么严重了。PUBLIC MORALITY 和PERSONAL MORALITY

所以二者无论从受关注的起因，和性质都是不同的，分开讲了。

happyman2000UID: 136936

to rain & rainbow
不同类型的公众人物，尽管有很多区别，但是在自己的隐私被大众所关注方面，起因是一样的：即人们的好奇心。大家不是因为监督总统的缘故而关心克林顿性丑闻。

演员和运动员也是有区别的，运动员主要靠自生奋斗与天才，而演员炒作的成分要大很多。

政治家也是有区别的，一类是靠竞选产生，一类靠任命产生。前者在上任前就成为公众人物，如总统候选人。而后者在上任后才成为公众人物，如美联储主席格林斯潘，还有财政部长。它们对媒体和公众的依赖程度不同，后者更有权要求保护自己的隐私。

所以，我觉得这个问题是相当复杂的。一点不成熟的看法是，越依赖知名度和公众支持的公众人物，就越无权保护自己隐私。两者是交换关系，你要得到知名度，你就得相应地牺牲隐私！
欢迎大家排砖！

imongUID: 140258

你们两个已经把答案都说出来了
直接分3段，case-by-case不就得了？
像上次那个697字分了4段的大牛一样

happyman2000UID: 136936

用google搜的定义

Public figures are more subject to public scrutiny and therefore have fewer protections than do private citizens in libel cases. So it is important to know whether the person about whom you are reporting is a public figure or a private citizen.

The definition of "public figure" has expanded in the past forty years. Originally, the Supreme Court considered a public figure to be a "government employee who has, or appears to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs." The Butts and Walker cases expanded that definition to include "...someone who has pervasive power and influence in a community" and a person who "has thrust himself into the forefront of a particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" (Brooks et al. 471-472).

angeikimUID: 4857

记不记得ETS范文里面关于generalist & specialist 的那个？ 其中的第一段就是call a balance between specialists and gerneralists. 所以也是个找平衡的文章。

所以，观点鲜明不代表完全肯定或者完全否定，只是，写的时候要紧紧的扣住自己的目的和主题。不能犹犹豫豫，晃来晃去的一会这个一会那个。