issue8 政治类withhold information 我来啦~~

haiyaUID: 187989

Issue8  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：43分30秒     596 words
从2005年0月22日21时11分到2005年0月22日21时43分
------题目------
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
------正文------
For the stability of the society or just the fame of his own, many leadership consider withholding information from the public. Some asserts ,this is necessary and desirable. However, in my opinion, I think it is not a wise deed.

Primarily, the power of the government comes from the public. The public have the authority to know what their nation is happening. As Rousseau, a famous philosopher, advocated in his masterpiece "The Social Contract" that the public release some rights for the stability of the society and congregate these rights together to be displaced with a form of organization. The organization is the nation, which takes the role to keep the peace and happiness. In this case, the rights of the public rise to change into the power of the nation. Hence, the master of the nation is indeed the public. The leader is not King to dominate them but the servant to serve for them.

Simply put, just as the Churchill, the former Premier of Great British, once said: "The price of greatness is responsibility." A great leader has the responsibility to do reports for the public. Further, he is accountable to design the short- and long- plan to lead the public to pass through the obstacles and create a favorite situation.

While some leaders withhold the information on the behalf of the stability of the society, unfortunately, the mere fact always betrays their wills. With the development of the massive global media, the public have more and more channels to master not only the situation of their own nation but also the international affairs immediately. If the political leader withholds the information, it will give the birth of canard and hearsay to penetrate the public's life. Although the leader's decision is to prevent the chaos of the society, the information and news from informal channels will instigate citizen's curiosity and stir up the society's stability. What's more, the situation will too deteriorate to be controlled. Take the SARS in Beijing as an example. When the SARS spread in early time over the Beijing, the mayor withheld the news for diluting the negative influence of this bad news. But out of his expectation, more and more citizens caught the SARS since there are little news to arouse their attention to fight against the infection. Some persons died and other lost the family. If the mayor had noticed the public at very early period, the SARS might be put emphasis on in advance so that many persons could survive from this nightmare. After this issue, the public's confidence on the government decrease, which is detrimental for the stable society. As a word, to withhold information from the public is not a desirable even though the purpose is beneficial at first.

Admittedly, some information should be withheld from the public, such as the secret of the nation and military and so forth due to the releasing of these information will threaten the security of the nation. Nevertheless, the government should on a relative transparent state to guarantee the right of the public to know the general information.

Nowadays, the communication between the government and the public appears more and more significant so that the citizen's intellect and ability can be focused on one point to propel the progress of the society. To withhold information is not a wise deed for a leader because it cut the channel to the public. If information only from one direction, the balance of the society will be flirted and broken up ultimately. This is the opposite direction of every political leader's aim.

haiyaUID: 187989

up一下，人气很旺呀~~

pherUID: 192036

For the stability of the society or just the fame of his own, many leadership consider withholding information from the public. Some asserts ,this is necessary and desirable. However, in my opinion, I think it is not a wise deed.

Primarily, the power of the government comes from the public. The public have the authority to know what their nation is happening.   （严重语病！！国家发生了？？“what happens to their nation”，我觉得这句话这样讲比较好，authority偏重的是权威，The public have the right to know the situations of their nation.）   As Rousseau, a famous philosopher, advocated in his masterpiece "The Social Contract" that the public release some rights for the stability of the society and congregate these rights together to be displaced with a form of organization. The organization is the nation, which takes the role to keep the peace and happiness. In this case, the rights of the public rise to change into the power of the nation. Hence, the master of the nation is indeed the public. The leader is not King to dominate them but the servant to serve for them.

Simply put, just as the Churchill, the former Premier of Great British, （Great Britain）once said: "The price of greatness is responsibility." A great leader has the responsibility to do reports for the public. Further, he is accountable to design the short- and long- plan to lead the public to pass through the obstacles and create a favorite situation.（这个例证显得勉强了，至少我看不出Churchill的话对于主题有何帮助）

While some leaders withhold the information on the behalf of the stability of the society, unfortunately, the mere fact always betrays their wills. With the development of the massive global media, the public have more and more channels to master not only the situation（s） of their own nation but also the international affairs immediately. If（这个if改成once比较好） the political leader withholds the information, it will give the birth of canard and hearsay to penetrate the public's life.（后半句改成被动语态吧，public's life will be ....） Although the leader's decision is to prevent the chaos of the society, the information and news from informal channels will instigate citizen's curiosity and stir up the society's stability. What's more, the situation（s） will too deteriorate to be controlled. （这句话 :( too ...to..句式中间放形容词啊....What's more, the deteriorated situations will  be out of control）Take the SARS in Beijing as an example. When the SARS spread in early time over the Beijing, the mayor withheld the news for diluting the negative influence of this bad news. But out of his expectation, more and more citizens caught the SARS since there are little news to arouse their attention to fight against the infection. Some persons died and other lost the family. If the mayor had noticed the public at very early period, the SARS might be put emphasis on in advance so that many persons could survive from this nightmare. After this issue, the public's confidence on the government decrease, which is detrimental for the stable society. As a word, to withhold information from the public is not a desirable even though the purpose is beneficial at first.

Admittedly, some information should be withheld from the public, such as the secret of the nation and military and so forth due to the releasing of these information will threaten the security of the nation. Nevertheless, the government should on a relative transparent state to guarantee the right of the public to know the general information.

Nowadays, the communication between the government and the public appears more and more significant so that the citizen's intellect and ability can be focused on one point to propel the progress of the society. To withhold information is not a wise deed for a leader because it cut the channel to the public. If information only from one direction, the balance of the society will be flirted and broken up ultimately. This is the opposite direction of every political leader's aim.
（除了一些语病外，文章写得蛮不错的。我提一点建议：可否再深层次的讨论一下为何goverment不能掩盖信息，比如可以这样讲，本来由goverment直接告诉public信息是public获得政府信息的最主要途径，此途径官方，所以权威。如果不通过此途径，public就会认为政府是在有意cheat大众，就会产生不信任感，会有逆反心理，就会使事态恶化，总之，我觉得整篇文章，立意和逻辑上已经很好了，如果能在内容上再有一点深度就更好了）

haiyaUID: 187989

:-*谢谢猪~~~~我等会订正好再贴上来：）

beilongzhuhaiUID: 175441

For the stability of the society or just the fame of his own, many leadership consider withholding information from the public. Some asserts , this is necessary and desirable. However, in my opinion, I think it is not a wise deed.
(语句简练，立场分明，观点明确。如果能更清楚一点提出论点更好。)

Primarily, the power of the government comes from the public. The public have the authority to know what their nation is happening. As Rousseau, a famous philosopher, advocated in his masterpiece "The Social Contract" that the public release some rights for the stability of the society and congregate these rights together to be displaced with a form of organization. The organization is the nation, which takes the role to keep the peace and happiness. In this case,  the rights of the public rise to change into the power of the nation. Hence, the master of the nation is indeed the public. The leader is not King to dominate them but the servant to serve for them. （理由与论据比较充分，论述的比较合理，举例到位。）

Simply put, （这里好像表达的不太好，后面没有推出的结论，simply put 最好放在后面。）just as the Churchill, the former Premier of Great British, once said: "The price of greatness is responsibility." A great leader has the responsibility to do reports for the public. Further, he is accountable to design the short- and long- plan to lead the public to pass through the obstacles and create a favorite situation.

While some leaders withhold the information on the behalf of the stability of the society, unfortunately, the mere fact always betrays their wills. With the development of the massive global media, the public have more and more channels to master not only the situation of their own nation but also the international affairs immediately. If the political leader withholds the information, it will give the birth of canard and hearsay to penetrate the public's life. Although the leader's decision is to prevent the chaos of the society, the information and news from informal channels will instigate citizen's curiosity and stir up the society's stability. What's more, the situation will too deteriorate to be controlled. Take the SARS in Beijing as an example. When the SARS spread in early time over the Beijing, the mayor withheld the news for diluting the negative influence of this bad news. But out of his expectation, more and more citizens caught the SARS since there are little news to arouse their attention to fight against the infection. Some persons died and other lost the family. If the mayor had noticed the public at very early period, the SARS might be put emphasis on in advance so that many persons could survive from this nightmare. After this issue, the public's confidence on the government decrease, which is detrimental for the stable society. As a word, to withhold information from the public is not a desirable even though the purpose is beneficial at first.

Admittedly, some information should be withheld from the public, such as the secret of the nation and military and so forth due to the releasing of these information will threaten the security of the nation. Nevertheless, the government should on a relative transparent state to guarantee the right of the public to know the general information.

Nowadays, the communication between the government and the public appears more and more significant so that the citizen's intellect and ability can be focused on one point to propel the progress of the society. To withhold information is not a wise deed for a leader because it cut the channel to the public. If information only from one direction, the balance of the society will be flirted and broken up ultimately. This is the opposite direction of every political leader's aim.


限时之内写出这篇文章真的很不错啊！但是由于时间的关系，你的小错还是不少。不过你的论点明确，论述与理由比较充分，语言比较精彩！佩服！

动笔就是进步！欢迎回拍！(其中有一篇也是issue8，不过我写的差多啦！)
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=244066
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242410
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=242967