GRE優秀作文範例

Issue "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."

Anything that makes a country’s government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation’s attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don’t see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

"在許多國家，人們現在可以打開電視，便可以看到政府是如何運作的。觀看到這樣一些程序能夠幫助人們理解那些影響到其生活的問題。電視轉播政府程序——審判，辯論，會議等不一而足——的種類越多，則社會將會獲益更多。"

任何能使一個國家的政府更透明的事情無疑總是一件好事情，至少在民主國家中是如此。這些社會通過得以看到他們所選舉的政府官員在做些什麼而獲益匪淺。但是，如果只是籠統地説政府程序轉播得越多，社會就會獲益更多，那麼，這便忽視了這樣一個事實，即有些時候，轉播得越少越好。有些類型的程序如果進行轉播，則甚至會受到負面影響，使社會處於更糟糕的境地，而不是帶來任何裨益。有些類型的政府程序應獲得更多的電視報道，但有些應該減少報道，以確保這些程序能恰當地進行。

轉播所有政府程序會引發負面作用，這方面的例子是美國對所指控的謀殺者和前美式足球全國聯賽超級明星O.J.辛普遜的審判。審判全程轉播，成為媒體一大焦點，在整個審判進程中吸引了全國的注意力。律師們清楚地知道，整個審判程序被轉播，他們的所作所為幾乎像電影演戲那樣。媒體的焦光燈如此窮追不捨，以致於那種馬戲團般的氛圍甚至波及到主審法官。電視鏡頭的存在以及密集的媒體報道效果致使這場審判史無前例，嚴重影響到這次審判的正常進程。參與者在鏡頭面前裝腔作勢，根本不專注於手頭應做的工作。許多人會認為，很大程度上由於電視的緣故，在這場特定的審判中，正義並未得到申張。

另一方面，有關政府日常實際工作的電視轉播能讓人們直接地深入瞭解政府實際上是怎樣運轉的。由於電視鏡頭每天都在那裏，政府官員們便變得習以為常，不再會因為它們的存在而受太大的影響。這樣，社會就能獲益，因為民眾能夠親眼目睹實際所在發生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那樣藏匿在一層祕密的面紗背後，從而使人無從知曉所被選舉的官員的神祕行為。

被電視轉播的政府程序越多，一個社會就會變得更好，此番陳述的問題之一是，人們可能會以為他們能目睹一切，但在實際上，電視鏡頭所捕捉到的可能只是所有發生的事情的一部分，無論有多少電視鏡頭。政府內發生的相當一部分事情是在"幕後"完成的，並不必定是在開會場所眾目睽睽之下進行的'。儘管在某種程度上"眼見為實"，但在相當多的時候，不為你所見的事情才起着決定性的作用。純粹去電視轉播政府的各項程序，當然能增進理解，但要充分理解某一過程，則人們須實際上積極地參與到這一過程中來。

政府程序電視轉播越多越好，這一陳述的另一個問題是，這一陳述認為當政府程序被轉播時，人們實際上正觀看着這些程序。美國有一個電視頻道，每天播放國會程序，但看這一頻道的人寥寥無幾。只有當某些重大問題需要進行辨論或進行投票時，才會有大量的人觀看這一頻道。純粹電視播放政府程序並不會影響到社會，除非社會觀看這些事件。

社會無疑能得益於電視對某些政府程序的報道。親眼目睹民選官員處理政府事務，能帶來一個額外的理解因素，來弄清政府的內在運轉機制。當政治家們被置於電視鏡頭的"注視"時，可以使其對其行為負責。他們在處理公眾事務時再也無法隱名埋姓。但政府程序並非應該全部進行電視轉播。有些時候，為了確保能作出正確的決策，隱祕應成為一種絕對的要求。