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

游客2023-12-14  25

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] We can infer that the author of the article is______.

选项 A、a reader
B、a critic
C、a racist
D、editor of TIME

答案 B

解析 推理判断题,婴求判断作者的身份。在开头的段落中,主语是用第一人称复数的WE,这在英文文章中是比较少见的。英文要么经常用第三人称以显示公正性,要么常用第一人称单数以旗帜鲜明地表达作者的观点与倾向。较少运用的第一人称复数往往是为了显示其观点的官方性和客观性,这在表达编辑部观点时使用是比较合适的。文章第一段就提到“我们发表的一个报道a story we published”、“我们重开了《时代》杂志的论坛栏目we have revived a section of TIME called Forum”,这些字句都有助于我们作出作者是时代杂志编辑的判断。此外,如果作者是一个评论者或读者(读者来信),体裁上大多数情况都会使用第一人称单数。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3272786.html
最新回复(0)