issue108, 政府工作和电视转播

coolwitsUID: 149150

108 "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings-trials, debates, meetings, etc-that are televised, the more society will benefit."
在很多国家中，现在通过电视来观看政府的运作已经成为可能。观察这些过程有助于人们了解那些影响他们生活的决策。可以供转播的政府运作越多 审判、辩论、会议等等 对社会的好处就越多。
1. 一些重大的决策, 很多是出于全局或者是长远的利益考虑, 当他们好像会损害到一部分人的目前利益时, 如果因为电视转播而提前被民众知道,而政府来不及使用强制措施,很容易引起他们的不满和抵触, 让这些决策没办法实施.
2. 而且, 靠电视转播很难让人们理解那些影响他们生活的决策
3. 实际上, 在作出决策后, 政府可以选择其他更适当的方法, 来让人们理解那些决策.
   
As democracy is prevailing all over the world, people tend to pay more attention to the right to know how and why the issues that affect their lives are determined. While some people advise that government proceedings--trials, debates, meetings, etc--be televised, I don’t think televising a sensible method to reach transparence without impairing the interests of the whole.

     First of all, many important decisions of government, which are usually considered from overall sense and developping perspective, can’t be abruptly informed to the public by televising while they sometimes seem to hurt the short-term interests of some individuals or some groups. In fact, if the proceedings of such decisions are televised, the individuals and groups whose interests will be scraped tend to express their discontent and contradict to the decisions before the government performs compulsory actions, which will inevitably encumber the realization of these decisions. For example, As fowl flu is now spreading in Asia and threaten the health of human being dramatically, many governments carry out compulsory actions to kill and bury fowl all over their countries, which will neccesarily impair the interests of people who feed and sell fowl. If the decision is televised, people who feed and sell fowl can possibly hide their fowl in advance to prevent their lose. In that case, the decision can never be carried out and the interests of the whole will be impaired.

     What’s more, televising governments’ proceedings can help little to make people understand the issues that affects their lives. Important issues tend to involve so much complexity that information revealed by televising is not enough to expalain it. While government want to make a decision that affect people’s lefe, it has to gather all kinds of information as well as consider the complicated relationships between the decision and the interests of the public. Actually, people involved in government proceedings have learned a lot of confidential information about the background and other crucial aspects of one complex issue. As they discuss about the issue, they seldom, if ever, talk about such information because they all know it and there is obviously no need to do so. Further more, it will certainly be forbiddened to talk about the confidential information while being televised. However, people who are watching the TV can’t understand the issue well without the assistance of the crucial information about it, so televising can hardly help them understand the issue.

     In addition, government can apply other approaches to increase transparence of its proceedings to a extent that can not only ensure interests of the whole but also satisfy the public to some degree. For example, government can work out and publicize at a suitable time corresponding documents to explain the determination, which can contain detailed, convincing, but safe information that can be more helpful to people who want to understand the issues that affect their lives. In this case, the public get proper things at a proper time, and the interests of the whole will be in a proper condition.

    To sum up, televising of the proceedings of government is not a clever appoach to get their transparence. In fact, it is not only ineffective but also too difficult to control to carry out televising. On the other hand, Government can reach the goal though other methods that are safer and more effective instead.

YevgrafUID: 154550

我个人意见：题目的重点似乎应该落在the more... the more...上，支持“越多越好”或者有所保留也就是“多未必好”。而且society是否benefits from电视转播和民众是否能完全理解转播，政府能否流畅的实施政策，并不存在必然的逻辑关系。我反过来说，政府不能实施决策未必是坏事，因为决策可能确实侵害了民众利益，政府的“长远考虑”也可能有欠周详。民众不能理解决策，不代表民众没有知情权，不理解的地方可以试图理解，但假如连让他们理解的途径都没有，这至少不是一个民主社会的发展方向。注意到美国相对比我们崇尚自由，如果要立限制自由的论点，更要小心组织逻辑。
个人意见仅供参考：）

gdhdannyUID: 125843

我觉得从反面写不太容易，但这篇很有见地
可是，全片没有发现让步，又一棒子打死的感觉
民主还是有好处吧
加强政府工作的透明度至少能够让政府官员鼓足干劲吧

coolwitsUID: 149150

谢谢大家.
我觉得电视转播根本就不存在让步的必要,增加政府工作透明度是很好,但电视转播就太儿戏了
我认为:这篇题眼是can help understand....., the more那句只是支撑