Join the words to make phrases and translate them into Russian/Belarusian

gregarious	interest
ominous	movies
superficial	undermining
moronic	picture
profound	coverage
tangential	nature

Match the words with their definitions.

moronic	having only a slight or indirect connection with something
cocooned	protected by surrounding himself completely with something
ominous	an offensive way of referring to somebody that you think is very stupid
tangential	suggesting that something bad is going to happen in the future
reclusive	acting or done with no skill
inept	such a lifestyle when a person lives alone and likes to avoid other people

Speech activities

1. Answer the following questions:

1. What ideas is the author of the article concerned with?

2. What are Dr. Putnam’s main principles? To what extent do you agree with them?

3. Do you share the opinion that today’s society is ignorant and lacks knowledge? If so, how can it be improved? Can television have a positive impact on society?

Agree or disagree with the following statements and give your reasons

· Television has profoundly undermined society’s traditional values and standards.

· TV has not only stripped away much of our essentially gregarious nature, but demolished the social fabric and common interest that has held communities together for centuries.

· People have become suspicious and reclusive.

· The more you read newspapers, the more trusting you are, the more you watch television, the less trusting you are.

· The message of the age has become: plug in, switch on, drop out.

Imagine that some of your group-mates are staunch supporters of Dr. Putnam’s ideas. Discuss these ideas with them and try to prove your point of view. Support your arguments with the information from the articles you’ve read and from your personal experience. Use the appropriate language exponents from the Speech Functions Bank.

Listening comprehension

You will hear interviews with Joanna Bogle, a member of the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, a group which aims to monitor the output of television and radio in Britain and with Kate Adie, a news reporter for the BBC and a documentary film maker. They talk on similar topics, but not in the same order. Listen to the interview and answer the questions.

1. What sort of programmes do they find offensive? Why? What examples do they give?

2. Do they feel people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality?

3. Do they think it matters whether they can?

4. What examples do they quote to support their views?

5. What sort of programmes do you think these are?

6. Do they think television reflects society or influences it?

7. Do they feel that television has positive as well as negative influences?

READING TWO

What do you think it is like to work as a correspondent? What problems may a correspondent face?

Public Concerns

Despite enjoying a period of unsurpassed wealth and influence in the 1990s and 2000s, the American media is troubled by rising public dissatisfaction. Critics complain that journalists are unfair, irresponsible or just plain arrogant. They complain that journalists are always emphasizing the negative, the sensational, and the abnormal rather than the normal. President science adviser expressed the irritation of many when he accused the press of “trying to tear down America.”

Some observers link the criticism to rising standards in journalism. “The press is more professional, more responsible, more careful, more ethical than it ever has been,” said David Shaw, media critic for the Los Angeles Times. “But we are also being far more critical toward other institutions, and people are asking, “Why don’t you criticize yourselves.” In fact, the rise of ombudsmen (spokesmen for groups with a grievance), “opinion-editorial” pages in newspapers, television time for statements of opinion and media review journals suggest that ways are being found for individuals and groups to present their views. During the early 1980s, a number of organized groups from both sides of the political spectrum were formed to monitor and critique the news media. Political balance in news reporting became an issue of debate and controversy.

Surveys show that the American public – on both sides of the political fence holds strong opinions about the press. According to a 2004 Gallup poll (survey of public opinion), 46 per cent of Americans believe the news media's bias is liberal, while 38 per cent said it is conservative, in contrast, most journalists – 59 per cent – described their political views as middle of the road.

Reporters are sometimes seen as heroes who expose wrongdoing on the part of the government or big business. In the early 1970s, for e.g., two young reporters for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, investigated a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in a Washington building known as “the Watergate.” Their reporting, along with an investigation by a Congressional committee and a court trial, helped implicate high White House official in the break-in. Woodward and Bernstein became popular heroes, especially after a film was made about them, and helped restore some glamour to the profession of journalism. Enrollments in journalism schools soared. With most students aspiring to be investigative reporters.

But there is a feeling that the press sometimes goes too far, crossing the fine line between the public’s right to know, on the one hand, and the right of individuals to privacy and the right of the government to protect the national security.

In many cases, the courts decide when the press has overstepped the bounds of its rights. Sometimes the courts decide in favor of the press. For e.g., in 1971 the government tried to stop the New York Times from publishing a secret study of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, claiming that publication would damage national security But the US Supreme Court ruled that since the government had not proved that the damage to national security would be so great, the newspapers should he free to publish the information.

One growing pressure on reporters and editors is the risk of being sued. Even though the First Amendment protects the press from government interference, the press does not have complete freedom. There are laws against libel and invasion of privacy, as well as limits on what reporters may do in order to get a story.

Libel is any false and malicious writing or picture that exposes a person to public ridicule or injures his reputation. If a broadcast or published story falsely implies that a private citizen committed a crime or is mentally incompetent, for e.g., the victim would probably win a libel suit. But Supreme Court decisions have made it much harder for public officials or well-known public figures to prove libel. Such persons must prove not only that the story is wrong, but that the journalist published his story with actual malice.

The right of privacy is meant to protect individual Americans' peace of mind and security. Journalists cannot barge into people's homes or offices to seek out news and expose their private lives to the public. Even when the facts are true, most news organizations have their own rules and guidelines on such matters. For e.g., most newspapers do not publish the names of rape victims or of minors accused if crimes.

Americans’ right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Constitution, has provoked many a media battle. Judges have often ordered journalists – many times unsuccessfully – not to publish damaging information about a person on trial. Also, in most states journalists may be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to identify the sources for their story if demanded by a court.

TV newspeople operate under an additional restriction called the Fairness Doctrine. Under this rule, when a station presents one viewpoint on a controversial issue, the public interest requires the station to give opposing viewpoints a chance to broadcast a reply.

In recent years, more news organizations are settling cases out of court to avoid costly – and embarrassing – legal battles. Editors say that major libel suits, which generally ask for millions of dollars in damages, are having a chilling effect on investigative reporting. This means that for fear of being involved in a costly libel suit, the reporter or news organization may avoid pursuing a controversial story although revelation of that information might he beneficial to the public. Most affected are small news operations, which do not have large profits to finance their defense. Press critics, however, say the chill factor also works the other way – against people who feel they have been wronged by publication of false information about them, but cannot afford to sue.

In short, the United States confronts a classic conflict between two deeply held beliefs: the right to know and the right to privacy and fair treatment. It is not a conflict that can he resolved with a single formula, but only on a case-by-case basis.

werrik.by.ru/2004.htm

Language focus

1. Explain the following notions and translate them into Russian/Belarusian:

– malice;

– ombudsman;

– Gallup poll;

– the Watergate;

– to expose wrongdoings;

– the fine line;

– the First Amendment;

– to sue;

– libel suit;