Thank you very much, Governor Ray, Governor Ogilvie, Governor Tiemann, Mr. Boyd, Miss Peterson, the many distinguished officials of the Republican Party gathered for this Midwest regional meeting. It's indeed a pleasure for me to be here tonight. I had intended to make all three of the regional meetings that have been scheduled thus far, but unfortunately I had to scrub the Western one -- Hawaii was a little far at the moment, that time. But I'm glad to be here tonight and I look forward to attending the others. 非常感谢雷州长、奥格尔维州长、蒂曼州长、博伊德先生、彼得森女士，以及出席这次中西部地区会议的共和党各位杰出官员。今晚能来到这里，我确实非常高兴。我原本打算参加迄今安排的三场地区会议，但遗憾的是不得不取消西部那一场——当时去夏威夷实在有点远。不过，我很高兴今晚来到这里，也期待参加其余会议。
I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject I think is of great interest to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. And no medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. 我想，从现场这些摄像机就可以明显看出，我来这里不是为了讨论禁用甜蜜素或滴滴涕。我想谈一个美国人民十分关心的话题。今晚，我要讨论电视媒介对美国人民的重要性。没有哪个国家比我们更依赖公民的理性判断，也没有哪种媒介对公众舆论具有更深刻的影响。
Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on such vast power. So nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?" "And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?" 在我们的制度中，没有任何地方对如此巨大的权力施加的制约更少。因此，也没有任何地方比新闻媒体更应自觉承担责任。问题是：“我们对电视新闻报道的要求够不够高？”“从事这一媒介的人对自己的要求又够不够高？”
Monday night, a week ago, President Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the Pacific. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history. 一周前的星期一晚上，尼克松总统发表了本届政府最重要的一次讲话，也是我们这个十年中最重要的讲话之一。主题是越南。当时，我和他一样，希望号召美国人民坚持到底，使这场冲突最终带来太平洋地区持久而公正的和平。在三十二分钟里，他向一个在本国历史上持续最久的战争中承受近三十三万人伤亡的国家陈明道理。
When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say. 总统结束讲话后——顺便说一句，他为这篇讲话准备了数周——他的话语和政策立刻遭到分析和挑剔的批评。聚集起来收听美国总统讲话的七千万美国观众，随即被交到一小群电视网评论员和自封的分析家手中；其中大多数人都以这样或那样的方式，对总统所说的内容表现出敌意。
It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Johnson's dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of non-preparedness. This was not it. 他们显然早已拿定主意。还记得约翰逊总统戏剧性宣布不再谋求连任后，评论员们如何手忙脚乱、摸索应对的人，都见过这些人真正毫无准备的状态。这一次可不是那样。
One commentator -- one commentator twice contradicted the President's statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. Another challenged the President's abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval. 一位评论员——一位评论员两次反驳总统关于同胡志明交换信件的陈述。另一位质疑总统作为政治家的能力。第三位则断言总统是在遵循五角大楼的路线。其他人也通过面部表情、提问语气和回应中的讥讽，清楚表明了他们的强烈反对。
To guarantee in advance that the President's plea for national unity would be challenged, one network, A.B.C., trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Mr. Harriman recited perfectly. He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative. 为了预先确保总统关于全国团结的呼吁会受到挑战，一家电视网——美国广播公司——特意请出埃弗里尔·哈里曼。在总统讲话期间，他一直在幕后等候。总统刚一结束，哈里曼先生便流利地背出了准备好的说辞。他攻击阮文绍政府缺乏代表性。
He criticized the President's speech for various deficiencies. He twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again. He stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want a military takeover of South Vietnam. And he told a little anecdote about a "very, very responsible" fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation. 他从各方面批评总统讲话的不足，两次呼吁参议院外交关系委员会再次辩论越南问题。他声称自己相信，越共或北越并非真的想以军事手段接管南越。他还讲了一则小故事，谈到自己在北越代表团中遇见的一位“非常、非常负责任”的人。
All in all, Mr. Harriman offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the United States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him. 总而言之，哈里曼先生提出了一大堆不请自来的意见，对美国总统阐述的政策加以质疑和反驳。总统呼吁团结，而哈里曼先生却在鼓动全国不要听从总统。
A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America's chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks -- a period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, Mr. Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires. 再说几句哈里曼先生。他曾担任美国在巴黎和平谈判中的首席谈判代表十个月；在此期间，美国作出了一些战争史上最重大的军事让步，换来的却只是敌方同意谈判桌的形状。哈里曼先生就像柯勒律治笔下的《古舟子》，似乎受到某种强烈冲动的驱使，要向每一个愿意倾听的人为自己的失败辩解。而电视网则表现得乐于给他想要的全部播出时间。
Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the -- and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having the President's words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested. 每个美国人都有权不同意美国总统，也有权公开表达这种异议。但是，美国总统同样有权直接与选举他的人民沟通；而且——而且这个国家的人民有权自己作出判断，形成对总统讲话的看法，而不应在尚未来得及理解总统的话语和思想之前，就先由怀有敌意的批评者带着偏见替他们作出定性。
When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler's Germany, he didn't have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the world -- the war through. When President Kennedy rallied a nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he'd asked America to follow. 当温斯顿·丘吉尔号召舆论坚持抗击希特勒德国时，他不必应付一群评论员，听他们质疑他是否正确判断了民意，或英国是否有毅力把这场世界——这场战争坚持到底。肯尼迪总统在古巴导弹危机中动员全国时，他对人民的讲话也没有被一桌批评者反复咀嚼，更没有人贬低他要求美国采取的行动方针。
The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. 我今晚讲话的目的，是请各位关注这一小群人。他们不仅享有对每一次总统讲话立即反驳的权利，更重要的是，他们可以不受约束地选择、呈现并解释我们国家面临的重大问题。
First, let's define that power. 首先，让我们界定一下这种权力。
At least 40 million Americans every night, it's estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Rogers' observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it's what they see and hear on their television sets. 据估计，每晚至少有四千万美国人收看电视网新闻。其中七百万人收看美国广播公司，其余观众则分属全国广播公司和哥伦比亚广播公司。根据哈里斯民意调查及其他研究，对数百万美国人而言，电视网是国内外新闻的唯一来源。用威尔·罗杰斯的话说，过去你所知道的，就是你在报纸上读到的；今天，对越来越多的美国人来说，则是他们在电视机上看到和听到的。
Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that's to reach the public. 那么，电视网新闻是如何决定的？一小群人——也许不过十来位主播、评论员和执行制片人——决定最终呈现给公众的二十分钟左右画面与评论。
This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day's events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. 这些内容是从可能得到的九十至一百八十分钟素材中挑选出来的。他们拥有广泛的选择权，决定四千万至五千万美国人将了解到哪些国内外当日事件。我们无法用传统的民主标准衡量这种权力和影响，因为这些人一夜之间就能制造全国性议题。他们的报道和评论可以促成或毁掉一场要求暂停战争的运动；可以在一周内把默默无闻的人推到全国瞩目的位置；可以让某些政治人物获得全国曝光，却对另一些人置之不理。
For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury. 对数百万美国人来说，持续报道某个议题——例如反弹道导弹系统或民权问题——的电视网记者，实际上成了一场全国性陪审审判中的主审法官。
It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. 必须承认，电视网通过新闻、纪录片和特别节目，为国民认知作出了重要贡献。它们经常以建设性和创造性的方式运用权力，唤醒公众对重大问题的良知。电视网一夜之间就让饥饿和煤工尘肺病（黑肺病）成为全国议题。在生动展现战争恐怖方面，电视网完成了其他媒介无法做到的事情。
The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that's the gift of their medium. They focus the nation's attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence. 电视网凭借这种媒介特有的直接性和即时性，直面我们最棘手的社会问题。它们让全国关注破坏环境的行为——关注五大湖污染和佛罗里达大沼泽地受到威胁的生态。但同样也是电视网，把斯托克利·卡迈克尔和乔治·林肯·洛克威尔从默默无闻推上全国舞台。
Nor is their power confined to the substantive. A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of -- of power over American public opinion unknown in history. 他们的权力也不限于实质内容。挑一下眉毛，改变一下语调，或在播出中间随口插入一句刻薄评论，都能使百万人怀疑某位公职人员是否诚实，或某项政府政策是否明智。一位联邦通信委员会委员认为，电视网的权力相当于地方、州和联邦政府权力的总和。这无疑是历史上前所未有的、对美国公众舆论的权力集中。
Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms "the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States." 那么，美国人对掌握这种权力的人了解多少？全国对制作和指导电视网新闻的人几乎一无所知。至于评论员，多数美国人只知道他们举止老练、神态自信，仿佛对每一件大事都了如指掌。我们确实知道，这些评论员和制片人无一例外都在华盛顿特区或纽约市的地理与思想范围内生活和工作；詹姆斯·雷斯顿把纽约称为“全美国最缺乏代表性的社群”。
Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states, "objectivity is impossible" to normal human behavior. Rather, he says, we should strive for "fairness." 这两个社群都沉浸在各自的地方主义和狭隘观念中。我们可以推断，这些人读的是同样的报纸，从同样的来源形成政治和社会观点。更糟的是，他们不断彼此交谈，从而人为强化共同看法。他们是否让自身偏见影响新闻的选择与呈现？戴维·布林克利说，对正常人类行为而言，“客观是不可能的”；他说，我们应当追求的是“公正”。
Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I quote: 另一位电视网新闻节目的主播则主张，我引用他的原话：
You can't expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are. I'll plead guilty to that. 你不能只因为坐在这样的座位上，摄像机开始盯着你，就把个人的全部信念一笔勾销。我认为，你的节目必须反映你的基本感受。这一点我承认。
Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that President Nixon's campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons. He claimed that, were it not for the fear of the hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, "his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe." 在一九六八年大选前不到一周，同一位评论员声称，尼克松总统的竞选承诺并不比竞选气球更持久。他还说，如果不是担心引发敌对反应，理查德·尼克松就会屈从于——以下是他的原话——“拿棍棒砸向敌人，或用切肉斧追杀敌人的本能”。
Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack. But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement. 如果这番诽谤出自一位政治候选人之口，用来攻击另一位候选人，多数评论员都会把它斥为党派攻击。但这次攻击来自电视网演播室这一享有特权的庇护所，因此披上了客观陈述的庄严外衣。
The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government? The views of a -- the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America. And that is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President's address and how the networks reviewed it. 美国人民理所当然不会容忍政府内部出现这种权力集中。那么，当这种权力集中在一个封闭的小圈子手中——这些享有特权的人未经任何人选举，却拥有政府批准并发放许可的垄断地位——我们提出质疑，难道不是公正而切题的吗？这个圈子中大多数人的观点并不——我再说一遍，并不——代表美国的观点。这正是全国民众对总统讲话的反应与电视网评论之间存在巨大鸿沟的原因。
Not only did the country receive the President's address warmer -- more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the United States. Yesterday, the President was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace. As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve. 不仅全国对总统讲话的反应比电视网热烈——更加热烈，美国国会也是如此。昨天，总统获悉，两党共有三百名众议员和五十名参议员支持他的和平努力。就像美国其他机构一样，也许现在该让电视网更积极回应全国民意，并对其服务的人民承担更多责任。
Now I want to make myself perfectly clear: I'm not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans -- when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases. 现在我要把话说得完全清楚：我并不是要求政府审查，也不是要求任何其他形式的审查。我要问的是，当四千万美国人——当四千万美国人每晚收到的新闻，由少数只对公司雇主负责的人决定，再经过少数承认自己抱有偏见的评论员过滤时，某种形式的审查是否已经存在？
The questions I'm raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They -- they should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that "right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection." 我今晚提出的问题，早就应该由其他人提出。那些历来把维护言论自由和新闻自由视为自身特殊责任的美国人，本应提出这些问题。那些赞同已故勒尼德·汉德法官观点的美国人——他们也早该提出这些问题。汉德法官认为：“正确的结论更可能从众声之中汇集而来，而不是来自任何形式的权威筛选。”
Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America. But the situations are not identical. Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C. reaches 20 times that number on its evening news. Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page. 电视网的拥护者援引宪法第一修正案，声称电视网应享有美国大型报纸所拥有的同等无限自由。但两种情况并不相同。《纽约时报》覆盖八十万人，而全国广播公司的晚间新闻覆盖人数是它的二十倍。观看电视画面、听取评论所产生的巨大冲击，也不能与阅读印刷文字相提并论。
A decade ago, before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, Walter Lippmann spoke to the issue. He said, 十年前，在电视网新闻尚未获得如此支配公众舆论的地位之前，沃尔特·李普曼曾谈到这个问题。他说：
There is an essential and radical difference between television and printing.... The three or four competing television stations control virtually all that can be received over the air by ordinary television sets. But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are the weeklies, the monthlies, the out-of-town newspapers and books. If a man does not like his newspaper, he can read another from out of town, or wait for a weekly news magazine. 电视与印刷媒介之间存在本质而根本的区别……三四家相互竞争的电视台，实际上控制着普通电视机能够通过无线电波接收到的全部内容。但除大发行量日报外，人们还有周刊、月刊、外地报纸和书籍可读。如果一个人不喜欢自己订阅的报纸，他可以阅读外地的另一份报纸，或等待每周出版的新闻杂志。
It is not ideal, but it is infinitely better than the situation in television. There, if a man does not like what the networks offer him, all he can do is turn them off, and listen to a phonograph. 这并不理想，却比电视领域的处境好得多。在电视领域，如果一个人不喜欢电视网提供的内容，他唯一能做的就是关掉电视，转而听唱机。
"Networks," he stated, "which are few in number, have a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication. The newspapers of mass circulation have no monopoly of the medium of print." 他还说：“电视网数量很少，实际上垄断了整个传播媒介。大发行量报纸却没有垄断印刷媒介。”
Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that democratic people should blithely ignore. And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph just because the airwaves belong to the networks. They don't. They belong to the people. As Justice Byron White wrote in his landmark opinion six months ago, "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." 对整个传播媒介的实际垄断，绝不是民主社会的人民可以轻率忽视的事情。我们也不会仅仅因为无线电波属于电视网，就关掉电视机去听唱机。无线电波并不属于它们，而属于人民。正如拜伦·怀特大法官六个月前在一份里程碑式意见中所写：“居于首要地位的是观众和听众的权利，而不是广播机构的权利。”
Now it's argued that this power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly. But as to whether or not the networks have abused the power they enjoy, let us call as our first witness former Vice President Humphrey and the city of Chicago. According to Theodore White, television's intercutting of the film from the streets of Chicago with the current proceedings on the floor of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968 -- the nomination of a man for the American Presidency by the brutality and violence of merciless police. 有人辩称，这种权力掌握在负责任使用它的人手中并无危险。但要判断电视网是否滥用了所享有的权力，让我们先请前副总统汉弗莱和芝加哥市作证。西奥多·怀特指出，电视把芝加哥街头画面与大会会场正在进行的议程交叉剪辑，制造出一九六八年最醒目却最虚假的政治图景——仿佛一个人是在残酷无情的警察暴力之下获得美国总统候选人提名。
If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representatives Commerce Committee, then television's presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice on the reputation of the Chicago police. According to the committee findings, one network in particular presented, and I quote, "a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates the demonstrators and protestors." Film of provocations of police that was available never saw the light of day, while the film of a police response which the protestors provoked was shown to millions. 如果我们相信众议院商业委员会最近的一份报告，那么电视对街头暴力的呈现损害了芝加哥警察的声誉。根据委员会的调查结果，尤其有一家电视网呈现了——我引用原话——“一种片面图景，在很大程度上为示威者和抗议者开脱”。现成的挑衅警察画面从未播出，而由抗议者挑起的警察反应画面却展示给数百万人观看。
Another network showed virtually the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making clear it was the same scene. And while the full report is reticent in drawing conclusions, it is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network news. Our knowledge of the impact of network news on the national mind is far from incomplete, but some early returns are available. Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on a democratic society. 另一家电视网从三个不同角度播放了实际上同一个暴力场面，却没有说明那是同一场景。尽管完整报告在下结论时十分谨慎，但它绝不是一份能使人相信电视网新闻公正性的文件。我们对电视网新闻如何影响国民思想的认识仍远不完整，不过已经有了一些初步结果。我们已有足够信息，可以严肃质疑它对民主社会造成的影响。
Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that its "missing ingredients" were "conviction, controversy, and a point of view." The networks have compensated with a vengeance. 几年前，电视网新闻的先驱之一弗雷德·弗兰德利写道，它“缺少的要素”是“信念、争议和观点”。如今，电视网已经变本加厉地补足了这些东西。
And in the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: "What is the end value -- to enlighten or to profit?" "What is the end result -- to inform or to confuse?" "How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability?" 面对电视网对争议无休止的追逐，我们应当问：“最终价值是什么——启迪公众，还是谋取利润？”“最终结果是什么——提供信息，还是制造困惑？”“不断寻找更多冲突、更多刺激和更多戏剧性，究竟如何服务于我们国家对内部和平与稳定的追求？”
Gresham's Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent. One minute of Eldridge Cleaver is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins. The labor crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation that results in a strike -- or better yet, violence along the picket lines. Normality has become the nemesis of the network news. 格雷欣法则似乎正在电视网新闻中发挥作用：坏消息驱逐好消息，非理性比理性更有争议性，赞同已经无法与异议竞争。埃尔德里奇·克利弗的一分钟，抵得上罗伊·威尔金斯的十分钟。在谈判桌上解决的劳资危机，远不如导致罢工的对抗有吸引力——最好纠察线上再发生暴力。正常状态已经成了电视网新闻的克星。
Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. The -- the American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals; that the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country; that violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus. We know that none of these conclusions is true. 所有这些争议造成的结果，是电视新闻往往呈现出一幅狭窄而扭曲的美国图景。马赛克中一块富有戏剧性的碎片，在数百万人心中变成了整幅画面。依赖电视获取新闻的美国人可能会以为，大多数美国学生都是愤懑的激进分子；大多数非裔美国人都不关心自己的国家；暴力和违法在美国校园里是常态而不是例外。我们知道，这些结论没有一个是真的。
Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York. Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes, but has it not created new ones in their places? What has this "passionate" pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through local compromise essential to the functioning of a democratic society? 也许，寻找公信力鸿沟的起点不应是华盛顿的政府办公室，而应是纽约的电视网演播室。电视或许摧毁了旧有的刻板印象，但难道没有创造新的刻板印象来取而代之吗？这种对争议的“热烈”追逐，对通过地方妥协推动进步的政治造成了什么影响？而这种政治正是民主社会运转所必需的。
The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street. How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show? 那些本着妥协精神、默默遵循自身原则和理念的众议员或参议员，许多美国人并不认识；而每个议题上声音最大、立场最极端的反对者，却街知巷闻。如果游行者不知道忠实守候的电视摄像机一定会到场，把他们的举动录进下一档新闻节目，我们还会看到多少游行和示威？
We've heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. 我们听到有人要求参议员、众议员和法官公开全部经济关系，让公众知道有哪些人、哪些利益在影响他们的决定和投票。这种主张有充分的理由。
But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well? In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States -- its institutions and its citizens? 但是，当一名评论员或制片人日复一夜地替数百万人决定，在重大议题的每一方观点中，他们能够看到和听到多少内容时，他是否也应先公开自己对该议题的个人看法？在追逐刺激与争议的过程中，那些专门攻击美国、攻击其制度和公民的少数人，是否得到了超过公平份额的播出时间？
Tonight I've raised questions. I've made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent, and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics -- to relate their great feeling with the great responsibilities they hold. 今晚，我提出了问题，并没有试图给出答案。答案必须由媒体从业者自己提供。他们面临的挑战，是把批判能力用在自己身上，把精力、才干和信念投入提高新闻报道的质量与客观性。他们还应建立自己的公民伦理——让强烈的情感与所承担的重大责任相协调。
And the people of America are challenged, too -- challenged to press for responsible news presentations. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader. 美国人民也面临挑战——要推动负责任的新闻报道。人民可以让电视网知道，他们需要的是如实、客观的新闻报道；可以写信给电视网或致电地方电视台，对偏见提出投诉。在这件事上，人民必须保护自己；改革者应当是公民，而不是政府；消费者可以成为最有效的改革推动者。
By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the United States depends on these men of the media. Whether what I've said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision; it's not your decision -- it's their decision. 最后，我要说，美国每一位民选领导人都依赖这些媒体人士。我今晚对各位所说的话，究竟能否被全国听到和看到，不由我决定，也不由各位决定——而由他们决定。
In tomorrow's edition of the Des Moines Register, you'll be able to read a news story detailing what I said tonight. Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page, where it belongs. Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation's networks? 在明天出版的《得梅因纪事报》上，各位可以读到一篇详细报道我今晚讲话内容的新闻。社论评论会留在它本该出现的社论版。全国电视网的新闻与评论之间，难道不也应存在同样的隔离墙吗？
Now my friends, we'd never trust such power, as I've described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It's time we questioned it in the hands of a small and unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America's airwaves for decades. The people are entitled to a full accounting of their stewardship. 朋友们，我们绝不会放心把我所描述的这种支配公众舆论的权力交给一个民选政府。如今，这种权力掌握在一小群未经选举的精英手中，我们该对它提出质疑了。大型电视网已经主宰美国公共电波数十年。人民有权要求它们对自己的受托管理作出完整交代。