英语应该怎么翻译呢？很多同学在学习英语的时候，都很烦恼课文的翻译。以下是小编整理的新世纪英语四课文翻译，欢迎阅读。

How do mainstream media become mainstream?

　　Part of the reason I write about media is that I'm interested in all kinds of knowledge and culture, and the easiest thing to study is the media. Every day we find the media. So you can do systematic research, and compare the differences between today and yesterday. There is a lot of evidence for the media to exaggerate what is being played out, what is not exaggerated, and how the media is building things.

　　My impression of the media has always been that it is not very different from the academic or, for example, the journals that make the case for intellectuals, although there are some additional restrictions. But they interact with each other, and that's why people move freely between these fields. You want to study the media as scientists study a complex molecule. You look at the internal organizational structure of the media and then make some assumptions about what media products might look like on that basis. Then you look at media products to see if the situation is consistent with your assumptions. In fact, the work of media analysis belongs to the last one -- to study carefully what media products are, and whether these products meet the assumptions of those who know the nature and structure of the media.

　　So what did you find? First of all, you found that different media are doing different things, such as entertainment or Hollywood, soap, etc., or even most of the domestic (most) of the newspaper, they are in the lead the masses.

　　Another part of the media, the elite media, media are sometimes referred to as setting issues, because resources are rich, they set a framework for other peers in this framework, such as the New York times and CBS. Their audiences are mostly privileged. People who read the New York times - the rich or sometimes called some of the political class - are actually engaged in the political system. They basically is the management of one kind or another, may be managers in the field of politics, business managers (e.g., the company's management, etc.), Dr Managers (e.g., a professor at the university), or those for people to see a problem with thinking and methods for planning arrangement.

　　Elite media sets the framework for other media to operate. If you were watching the ap news, it continuously published a lot of messages, around three o 'clock in the afternoon it will suspend release new message, come out a every day the same notice: "dear editor note: tomorrow, the New York times front page will be issued the following news." The aim is that if you are a city of Dayton, Ohio, the editor of a newspaper, but there was no news sources, can think of or don't bother to dig the news, the announcement to tell you what news. The news is on the fourth page of your home page, and you leave it to non-local news or entertainment news. Put them in those pages because the New York times tells you what to watch tomorrow. If you're Ohio

　　Editor of a newspaper in Dayton, state, you can say that you have to do that because you lack the resources. If you don't do it by the rules, you'll soon see the consequences if you don't like it. In fact, the recent events in the SAN jose mercury news are a case in point. If you're off track, there are plenty of things you can do to get you back on track. If you break the pattern, it won't last long. That framework works well, it just reflects the obvious power structure, understandable.

　　The real mass media is basically entertainment. Let them do something else, so long as they don't bother us (" we "means people who control everything). For example, let them be interested in the sport of professional sport, which fascinates people about professional sports, sex scandals, celebrities and their problems, and so on. Anything, as long as it doesn't involve serious content. Of course, serious matters should be addressed by "us".

　　What are the elite media that set the agenda? For example, the New York times and CBS. First, they are both large and highly profitable companies, and most of them are in contact with larger companies like general electric or Westinghouse, or are wholly owned by them. In the framework of the system of private ownership, their status is high. Companies are basically autocratic, hierarchical and top-down control systems. If you don't like what they are doing, please do it yourself. The mainstream media is only part of that system.

　　What is the environment of the media system? It's basically the same thing. Interacting with them are all other important centres of power - government, other companies or universities. Because the media is a theoretical system, they are closely related to universities. Suppose you are a reporter to write a report about southeast Asia or Africa, you should to find a famous university expert to tell you what to write, or to a certain foundation, such as the brookings institute or the American enterprise institute, they will tell you what to say. These peripheral institutions are very similar to the media.

　　Universities, for example, are not independent institutions. While there may be some independent people in college, the media is the same, and so are the companies. In this regard, the fascist countries also have independent people. But the university itself is a parasitic institution that rely on external support, the support, such as private wealth fund companies and the government (the government and corporate power linked so closely that you even it is difficult to distinguish between both), the university's basic survival in them. Who find themselves in the midst of college without adaptation, not willing to accept and agree with the structure of people (if you don't agree with it, to believe in it, you won't be able to work together with it), will gradually be cleared out, from kindergarten began. There are many ways to filter out those pesky, independent thinkers. People who have gone to college know that the education system is a very good system for encouraging conformity. If you don't follow the rules, you will make trouble. Thus, the people who eventually leave behind this filter are the ones that really, honestly (and not pretend to) identify with the beliefs and attitudes of the social power class. The top schools, such as harvard and Princeton, and those small, high schools, have social functions. If you go through a school like harvard, where most of the time it's taught how to behave like a member of the upper class, how to think correctly and so on.

　　Well, look at the structure of the whole system. What do you expect the news to be? The results were obvious. We take the New York times as an example, it's a company that sells products, and its products are its audience. They didn't make money when you bought their newspaper. They are also happy to put newspapers on the Internet for free reading. In fact, selling newspapers is a loss to them. But the audience is their real product. Their product is the privileged class, you know, like those newspaper writers who are at the top of society making decisions. You have to sell products to the market, which, of course, refers to advertisers (ie, other industries). They sell their audiences, whether it's television or newspapers or any other media. These companies sell their audiences to other companies. This is big business for elite media.

　　Well, what do you expect to happen? What can you predict about the nature of media products in such a social environment? What would be the null hypothesis based on no further assumptions? The obvious assumption is that media products - both tangible and intangible - tend to reflect the interests of buyers and sellers around the media, the interests of these institutions. It would have been a miracle.