【12月-1月IBT综合备考活动】之【TWE写作】12-24

xlwxxyUID: 2568970

In general, I disagree with the assertion that intense media scrutiny nearly always serves to diminish the reputation of society's would-be good examples, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures whether good example or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called good examples have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by the media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered, the reputation of any public figure, good example or otherwise, is forever tarnished.
The chief reason why I generally disagree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially good example public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One needs look no further than the newsstand, local television news broadcast, or talk show to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus in order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand scrutiny of good example public figures that serves to diminish their reputation.
A second reason why I fundamentally disagree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their good example is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgment about a public figure--good example or otherwise.
A third reason for my disagreement with the statement has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person's reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet in my observation these are exceptional cases; besides, a damage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen good example is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.
In sum, the statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish, and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching good examples being knocked off their pedestals.

[ 本帖最后由 xlwxxy 于 2008-12-24 22:07 编辑 ]

hustly0415UID: 2407456

In general, I disagree with the assertion that intense media scrutiny nearly always serves to diminish the reputation of society's would-be good examples, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures whether good example or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called good examples have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by the media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered, the reputation of any public figure, good example or otherwise, is forever tarnished.

The chief reason why I generally disagree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially good example public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One needs look no further than the newsstand, local television news broadcast, or talk show to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus in order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand scrutiny of good example public figures that serves to diminish their reputation.

A second reason why I fundamentally disagree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their good example is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgment about a public figure--good example or otherwise.

A third reason for my disagreement with the statement has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person's reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet in my observation these are exceptional cases; besides, a damage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen good example is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.

In sum, the statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish, and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching good examples being knocked off their pedestals.

整段文章太长了。
三个分论点选得很不错。

[ 本帖最后由 hustly0415 于 2008-12-26 18:41 编辑 ]

nickey0809UID: 2349468

In general, I disagree with the assertion that intense media scrutiny nearly always serves to diminish the reputation of society's would-be good examples, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures whether good example or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called good examples have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by the media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered, the reputation of any public figure, good example or otherwise, is forever tarnished. (没看懂，我水平太有限了吧……最好表示得明确点)
The chief reason why I generally disagree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially good example public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One needs look no further than the newsstand, local television news broadcast, or talk show to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus in order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand scrutiny of good example public figures that serves to diminish their reputation. 这个想法不错，
second reason why I fundamentally disagree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their good example is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgment about a public figure--good example or otherwise.

A third reason for my disagreement with the statement has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person's reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet in my observation these are exceptional cases; besides, a damage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen good example is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.
In sum, the statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish, and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching good examples being knocked off their pedestals.
分两天把这篇看了两遍…… 用了很多我不知道的词，GRE作文时这样的么？不知道说什么好
论点是挺到位的