2. 职称英语
  3. Three weeks ago, a story we published put us in the middle of a controversy.

Three weeks ago, a story we published put us in the middle of a controversy.

游客2023-12-14  17
问题     Three weeks ago, a story we published put us in the middle of a controversy. It was hardly the first time that has happened, but this instance suggested an opportunity for more than usual colloquy in the letters pages. So for this occasion and others like it, we have revived a section of TIME called Forum, which begins on page 28, concerns our cover subject this week—the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Parrakhan.
    The decision to pursue an in-depth investigation of this subject was prompted by the anti-Semitic and otherwise racist speech that Farrakhan’s aide, Khallid Muhammad, gave at Kean College in New Jersey. The story was newsworthy in large part because it came just as some mainstream black groups were attempting to form a constructive alliance with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. News of the speech loosed a flash flood of reportage and commentary on the subject, and at that time we began the kind of weeks-long investigation a cover story like this one requires. At the same time, we published an article on one telling aspect of the larger story: the fact that some black leaders were offended when whites called on them to denounce racism in other black leaders while seeming to ignore offensive remarks by whites — as, for example, Senator Ernest Hoolings, who had some time before made a supposedly joking reference to an African delegation as cannibals. The larger issue was that blacks feel they should be presumed to abhor anti-Semitism and other forms of racism without having to say no, and that they resent the attempt by whites to script their views, behavior or alliances.
    The story raised interesting and important points, and it clearly struck a nerve, The reaction was instantaneous and strong, most of it coming from white and Jewish readers. Some argued that our story was opinion masquerading as fact. Some people, both white and black, said that crediting white pressure for the denunciations of Farrakhan was condescending, that it deprived black leaders of credit for what was simply principled behavior. Some readers also felt that to concentrate on this issue was to minimize or downplay the virulence of Muhammad’s speech. And there was a general view among our critics that no amount of good works by the Nation of Islam could justify any black leader’s toleration of, not to mention alliance with, such a racist organization.
    The issues raised by the story’s critics are important. Still, this much must be said: Muhammad’s speech was wholly disreputable and vile, and I believe our story made that clear. Our focus, however, was not on black racism but on the perception of a subtle form of white racism——the sense among some back leaders that, as the story put it, "some whites feel a need to make all black leaders speak out whenever one black says something stupid." That this feeling of grievance exists is not just TIMEs opinion. It is fact. [br] The author’s opinion of Muhammad’s speech is______.
选项 A、sympathetic
B、favourable
C、unfavourable
D、not known
答案 C
解析 观点态度题，问作者对穆罕默德演讲的态度。本题虽然问的是细节，但定位比较困难，因为题干中的关键词“Muhammad’s speech”在文章各处都有体现。但根据英文文章的特点，做这类题目时寻找答案的技巧是看头尾，作者除非是不表达自己的态度，那要么就是在开头要么就是在最后会明确表态的。本题的答案就是在最后一段的第二句：“Still，this much must be said：Muhammad’s speech was wholly disreputable and vile还有，必须要说的是：穆罕默德的演讲完全是声名狼藉、卑鄙恶劣的……”这里作者毫不畏言地表达了对该演讲的反感，所以答案是C“反对”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3271648.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)