- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
记者道德翻译
The Moral Media: How Journalists Reason About Ethics, L. Wilkins, R. Coleman. Laurence Earlbaum Associates
Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. (2005) 164 pp., Paper, $19.95
Author: Timothy N. Walters
Nationality: United Arab Emirates
Source:?Public Relations Review?Volume 33 Issue 1As Gabriel Heater might have said, there’s good news tonight in the findings of The Moral Media. That’s because in an age when the profession itself is under stress, the authors are unequivocal when they stated that “this study demonstrates that journalists are both good and subtle moral thinkers.”
正如加布里埃尔所说的那样,今天晚上《媒体道德》的调查结果,可能会传来好消息。这是因为在这样一个时代,记者处于行业本身的压力下,作者明确指出当他们说“这项研究表明记者是一个优秀并且微妙的道德思想家”。
The authors concluded that much variation in journalists’ ability to make an ethical or moral decision was tied to education and to the journalistic domain of knowledge. Journalists, the authors noted, think better about the ethical problems connected with the journalism domain than they do about ethics in general. “Give journalists a choice in the sort of professional work they attempt, expose them to the rigors of investigative reporting, moderate the influence of work-based rules and religion, and journalists are capable of high-level ethical thinking.”
作者得出结论认为,记者的能力对记者作出伦理道德的决策有很大的影响作用,它与教育和新闻领域的知识紧密地联系在一起。作者指出,在一般情况下记者应该比他们目前所做的更好地将伦理道德问题与新闻领域联系在一起。“给记者一个选择,看他们是以他们正在进行的专业工作,暴露他们的调查报告的严酷,以工作为基础的规则和宗教的温和影响为先,还是以和记者高层次的道德思维能力为先”
What also rings clear from the findings was that “the participants were not moral midgets. They understood both rights and responsibilities,” wrestling with the implications of their actions as well.” In doing so, participants often relied on a process that “many referred to as a best practices approach” to make their choices. Given time to think, professionals also reasoned on multiple dimensions including universal principles, legal ramifications, and notions of the craft. “These participants,” the authors noted, “were both able and subtle moral thinkers, a finding that shoul
文档评论(0)