一级免费看_日韩亚洲欧美在线_亚洲三级小说_一区二区三区在线观看免费_亚洲一区二区免费看_天天综合av

牛刀小試

( C )

The Federal Communications Commission (聯邦通訊委員會) (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin just relaunched   the formal review of media ownership rules. The agency’s “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” issued  July 25, is vague, but its intention is clear: to let a few giant media corporations swallow up more local  television channels, radio stations and newspapers in a single market. Martin’s main target is the ban on  “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership” that prohibits one company from owning the major daily  newspaper as well as radio and TV stations in the same area. He’d also like to allow one company to  own more than one TV station in smaller markets, and more than two in the largest cities. A few powerful  firms in major cities have won waivers (棄權) to the ban, or at least delays on enforcement, but those are the  exceptions.
That Déjà vu you’re feeling is because the FCC tried to push through the same rule changes in 2003 under  then-Chairman Michael Powell. In response, millions of people --- encouraged by groups such as the National  Rifle Assn. and the National Organization for Women --- contacted the FCC and Congress to voice their  opposition. The FCC approved the rule changes anyway, only to see them nearly overturned by Congress and  then rejected by the courts. Despite the overwhelming public opposition, Martin’s latest attempt to eliminate  cross-ownership rules is driven by the massive lobbying (游說) of a cartel (企業聯盟) of second-tier big  media companies specializing in newspaper and broadcast station ownership, such as Gannett, Media General  and Tribune. Their motive is bigger profits.
But what’s good for Big Media’s bottom line isn’t always good for the rest of us. The first victim of “media  company towns” would be journalism. When one firm owns most of a city’s news outlets, who needs a  bunch of competing newsrooms? Investigative reporting and extensive local coverage requires a costly staff.  It’s far cheaper to syndicate (出售給多個媒體) fare from headquarters than to support a diversity of local  voices. If your readers and viewers don’t like it, where else are they going to go? 
Once the big chains start selling and exchanging their properties to build up larger fiefdoms (地盤),the already  declining number of independent and minority owners will be further squeezed out. Today, just one in five  daily newspapers is owned by individuals or companies that don’t own any other newspapers. According to  the most recent FCC data, fewer than 4% of radio stations and 2% of TV stations are owned by minorities.
Industry and Wall Street publicity says local media can’t compete without further consolidation (整合). Yet  media companies already enjoy higher profit margins than most industries. They say we must deregulate (解除控制). But radio and TV station ownership is by definition regulated --- these are the public airwaves and there  are only so many channels available in a community. The only question is on whose behalf will Washington  make the rules: major media companies or the public？

73. The rule on “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership” intends to ___________. 

A. prevent companies from owning both television and radio stations

B.  limit a company from owning more than one television station

C. replace giant media corporations with media company towns

D. protect local voices, vigorous competition and diverse viewpoints

74. Which of the following will probably happen if the FCC’s rule changes are approved? 

A.  The government will completely dominate public speech.

B.  The public will voice their strong opposition to Congress.

C.  The number of radios and TV stations will decline sharply.

D.  The local media competition will be almost eliminated.

75. “Déjà vu”( Line l, Paragraph 2 ) probably means a feeling that___________. 

A.  a new situation has occurred before

B. a familiar situation becomes unfamiliar

C. the situation has run out of control

D.  the situation is better than expected

76. Which of the following is true according to the text? 

A. The former chairman of the FCC ignored public opinion with a risk.

B. A company is forbidden to own more than one newspaper.

C.  The local news outlets are controlled by independent companies.

D.  Media industry used to be an unprofitable industry. 

77. Which of the following might be the best title of the passage? 

A. Can We Hear More Local Voices?                           

B.  Do We Really Want Big Media to Get Even Bigger?

C.  How Will FCC’s Action Affect Consumers?

D.  How Will Washington Make Media Ownership Rules?

真相大白

73. D              74. D             75. A          76. A                 77. B

名師把脈

本文屬于新聞類閱讀，主要關于美國新聞媒體政策改革。題目主要要求讀者對新政策內容、目的，作者的態度有正確的理解和判斷。

步步為贏

73. D為信息題。文章一開始就指出Martin的新政策的目的非常清晰：to let a few giant media corporations swallow up more local television channels, radio stations and newspapers in a single market。（大公司吞掉小公司）。而之前的”newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership”意在保護local voices, 從而成為了Martin的main target。

74. D信息題。信息來源于第二段：Martin’s latest attempt to eliminate cross-ownership rules。那么，如果Martin的政策得以推行，那么少數巨頭媒體公司就會吞噬大量的地方媒體。因此選擇D。

75. A推斷題。從后面的the same rule changes in 2003可以推斷出，該類時間以前也發生過。因此，Déjà vu也就不難理解了---the feeling that you have previously experienced something which is happening to you now。

76. 信息判斷題。B顯然違背了Martin新政策的意愿：to swallow up the local media。C是Martin的政策意愿，但還不是現狀。D信息屬于無中生有。A選項信息可在第二段找到：millions of people… contacted the FCC and Congress to voice their opposition.說明2003的rule受到了公眾的抵制。因此答案選擇A。

77. 考查對正片文章中心思想的把握。本篇主要是對美國新聞媒體，尤其是電（視）臺，政策的討論。從第三段：But what’s good for Big Media’s bottom line isn’t always good for the rest of us以及第四段：The only question is on whose behalf will Washington make the rules: major media companies or the public?我們可以看出作者的main idea是在探討媒體“以大吞小”是否真的可以為公眾帶來好處。因此選擇B。

• 上一篇：2016靜安區高中二模解析之回答問題
• 下一篇：2016靜安區高中二模解析之閱讀B篇