名人演讲 "Television News Coverage"
I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject which I think if of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment 1 of its citizens. No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious 2 responsibility exercised than by the news media. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?" "And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?"
Monday night a week ago, President Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting 3 and just peace in the Pacific. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history.
When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators 4 and self-appointed analysts 6, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility 7 to what he had to say.
It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling 8 and groping that followed President Johnson’s dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it.
One commentator 5 twice contradicted the President’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. Another challenged the President’s abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm 9 of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval 10.
To guarantee in advance that the President’s plea for national unity 11 would be challenged, one network trotted 12 out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Mr. Harriman recited perfectly 13. He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative; he criticized the President’s speech for various deficiencies; he twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again; he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want military take-over of South Vietnam; and he told a little anecdote 14 about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation 15.
All in all, Mr. Harrison offered a broad range of gratuitous 16 advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the United States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him.
A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America’s chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks -- a period in which the United States swapped 18 some of the greatest military concessions 19 in the history of warfare 20 for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner 21, Mr. Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify 22 his failures to anyone who will listen. And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires.
Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.
When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina 23 to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged 24 the course of action he’d asked America to follow.
The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield 25 a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power.
At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets.
Now how is this network news determined 26? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad.
They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage 27 and commentary a moratorium 28 on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence 29 within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.
For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.
It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively 30 and creatively to awaken 31 the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium. They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence.
Nor is their power confined to the substantive 32. A raised eyebrow 33, an inflection of the voice, a caustic 34 remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity 35 of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner 36 considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.
Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane 37 and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical 38 and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.
Both communities bask 39 in their own provincialism, their own parochialism.
We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby 40 providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases 42 to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states objectivity is impossible to normal human behavior. Rather, he says, we should strive for fairness.
Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I quote: “You can’t expunge 43 all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are. I’ll plead guilty to that.”
Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that President Nixon’s campaign commitments were no more durable 44 than campaign balloons. He claimed that, were it not for the fear of hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, “his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe 45.”
Had this slander 46 been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan 47 attack. But this attack emanated 48 from the privileged sanctuary 49 of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement. The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed 50 by Government?
The views of the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf 51 existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. Not only did the country receive the President’s speech more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the United States.
Yesterday, the President was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed 52 his efforts for peace. As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve.
Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate 53 employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.
The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation 54 of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative 55 selection. Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment 56 right to the same unlimited 57 freedoms held by the great newspapers of America.
But the situations are not identical. Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C. reaches 20 times that number on its evening news. [The average weekday circulation of the Times in October was 1,012,367; the average Sunday circulation was 1,523,558.] Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page.
A decade ago, before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, Walter Lippman spoke 58 to the issue. He said there’s an essential and radical 59 difference between television and printing. The three or four competing television stations control virtually all that can be received over the air by ordinary television sets. But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are weeklies, monthlies, out-of-town newspapers and books. If a man doesn’t like his newspaper, he can read another from out of town or wait for a weekly news magazine. It’s not ideal, but it’s infinitely 60 better than the situation in television.
There, if a man doesn’t like what the networks are showing, all he can do is turn them off and listen to a phonograph. "Networks," he stated "which are few in number have a virtual monopoly of a whole media of communications." The newspaper of mass circulation have no monopoly on the medium of print.
Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that democratic people should blindly ignore. And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph just because the airways 61 belong to the networks. They don’t. They belong to the people. As Justice Byron wrote in his landmark 62 opinion six months ago, "It’s the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount 63."
Now it’s argued that this power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly. But as to whether or not the networks have abused the power they enjoy, let us call as our first witness, former Vice 17 President Humphrey and the city of Chicago. According to Theodore White, television’s intercutting of the film from the streets of Chicago with the "current proceedings 64 on the floor of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968 -- the nomination 65 of a man for the American Presidency 66 by the brutality 67 and violence of merciless police."
If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representative Commerce Committee, then television’s presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice 68 on the reputation of the Chicago police. According to the committee findings, one network in particular presented, and I quote, “a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates 69 the demonstrators and protestors.” Film of provocations 70 of police that was available never saw the light of day, while the film of a police response which the protestors provoked was shown to millions.
Another network showed virtually the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making clear it was the same scene. And, while the full report is reticent 71 in drawing conclusions, it is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network news. Our knowledge of the impact of network news on the national mind is far from complete, but some early returns are available. Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on a democratic society.
Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that its missing ingredients were conviction, controversy 72, and a point of view. The networks have compensated 73 with a vengeance 74.
And in the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: What is the end value -- to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result -- to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing 75 exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability?
Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational 76 is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence 77 can no longer compete with dissent 78. One minute of Eldrige Cleaver 79 is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins. The labor 80 crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation 81 that results in a strike -- or better yet, violence along the picket 82 lines. Normality has become the nemesis 83 of the network news.
Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic 84 becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. The American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered 85 radicals 86; that the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country; that violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus.
We know that none of these conclusions is true.
Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York! Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes 87, but has it not created new ones in their places? What has this "passionate 88" pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through logical compromise essential to the functioning of a democratic society?
The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters 89 on every issue are known to every man in the street. How many marches and demonstrations 90 would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?
We’ve heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?
In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States -- its institutions and its citizens?
Tonight I’ve raised questions. I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent, and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic 91 ethics 92 to relate to the great responsibilities they hold.
And the people of America are challenged, too -- challenged to press for responsible news presentation. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias 41 through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader.
By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the United States depends on these men of the media. Whether what I’ve said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision, it’s not your decision, it’s their decision. In tomorrow’s edition of the Des Moines Register, you’ll be able to read a news story detailing what I’ve said tonight. Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page, where it belongs. Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation’s networks?
Now, my friends, we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite 93. The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades. The people are entitled a full accounting 94 their stewardship 95.
- The chairman flatters himself on his judgment of people.主席自认为他审视人比别人高明。
- He's a man of excellent judgment.他眼力过人。
- He is a conscientious man and knows his job.他很认真负责,也很懂行。
- He is very conscientious in the performance of his duties.他非常认真地履行职责。
- The lasting war debased the value of the dollar.持久的战争使美元贬值。
- We hope for a lasting settlement of all these troubles.我们希望这些纠纷能获得永久的解决。
- Sports commentators repeat the same phrases ad nauseam. 体育解说员翻来覆去说着同样的词语,真叫人腻烦。
- Television sports commentators repeat the same phrases ad nauseam. 电视体育解说员说来说去就是那么几句话,令人厌烦。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- He is a good commentator because he can get across the game.他能简单地解说这场比赛,是个好的解说者。
- The commentator made a big mistake during the live broadcast.在直播节目中评论员犯了个大错误。
- City analysts forecast huge profits this year. 伦敦金融分析家预测今年的利润非常丰厚。
- I was impressed by the high calibre of the researchers and analysts. 研究人员和分析人员的高素质给我留下了深刻印象。
- There is open hostility between the two leaders.两位领导人表现出公开的敌意。
- His hostility to your plan is well known.他对你的计划所持的敌意是众所周知的。
- His sarcasm hurt her feelings.他的讽刺伤害了她的感情。
- She was given to using bitter sarcasm.她惯于用尖酸刻薄语言挖苦人。
- The teacher made an outward show of disapproval.老师表面上表示不同意。
- They shouted their disapproval.他们喊叫表示反对。
- When we speak of unity,we do not mean unprincipled peace.所谓团结,并非一团和气。
- We must strengthen our unity in the face of powerful enemies.大敌当前,我们必须加强团结。
- She trotted her pony around the field. 她骑着小马绕场慢跑。
- Anne trotted obediently beside her mother. 安妮听话地跟在妈妈身边走。
- The witnesses were each perfectly certain of what they said.证人们个个对自己所说的话十分肯定。
- Everything that we're doing is all perfectly above board.我们做的每件事情都是光明正大的。
- He departed from the text to tell an anecdote.他偏离课文讲起了一则轶事。
- It had never been more than a family anecdote.那不过是个家庭趣谈罢了。
- The statement of our delegation was singularly appropriate to the occasion.我们代表团的声明非常适合时宜。
- We shall inform you of the date of the delegation's arrival.我们将把代表团到达的日期通知你。
- His criticism is quite gratuitous.他的批评完全没有根据。
- There's too much crime and gratuitous violence on TV.电视里充斥着犯罪和无端的暴力。
- He guarded himself against vice.他避免染上坏习惯。
- They are sunk in the depth of vice.他们堕入了罪恶的深渊。
- I liked her coat and she liked mine, so we swapped. 我喜欢她的外套,她喜欢我的外套,于是我们就交换了。
- At half-time the manager swapped some of the players around. 经理在半场时把几名队员换下了场。
- The firm will be forced to make concessions if it wants to avoid a strike. 要想避免罢工,公司将不得不作出一些让步。
- The concessions did little to placate the students. 让步根本未能平息学生的愤怒。
- He addressed the audience on the subject of atomic warfare.他向听众演讲有关原子战争的问题。
- Their struggle consists mainly in peasant guerrilla warfare.他们的斗争主要是农民游击战。
- A smooth sea never made a skillful mariner.平静的大海决不能造就熟练的水手。
- A mariner must have his eye upon rocks and sands as well as upon the North Star.海员不仅要盯着北极星,还要注意暗礁和险滩。
- He tried to justify his absence with lame excuses.他想用站不住脚的借口为自己的缺席辩解。
- Can you justify your rude behavior to me?你能向我证明你的粗野行为是有道理的吗?
- I lacked the stamina to run the whole length of the race.我没有跑完全程的耐力。
- Giving up smoking had a magical effect on his stamina.戒烟神奇地增强了他的体力。
- French-Canadian fur trappers and Sioux disparaged such country as "bad lands. " 法语的加拿大毛皮捕兽器和苏人的贬低国家作为“坏土地”。 来自互联网
- She disparaged her student's efforts. 她轻视她的学生做出的努力。 来自互联网
- They wield enormous political power.他们行使巨大的政治权力。
- People may wield the power in a democracy.在民主国家里,人民可以行使权力。
- I have determined on going to Tibet after graduation.我已决定毕业后去西藏。
- He determined to view the rooms behind the office.他决定查看一下办公室后面的房间。
- There's little coverage of foreign news in the newspaper.报纸上几乎没有国外新闻报道。
- This is an insurance policy with extensive coverage.这是一项承保范围广泛的保险。
- The government has called for a moratorium on weapons testing.政府已要求暂停武器试验。
- We recommended a moratorium on two particular kinds of experiments.我们建议暂禁两种特殊的实验。
- He came to prominence during the World Cup in Italy.他在意大利的世界杯赛中声名鹊起。
- This young fashion designer is rising to prominence.这位年轻的时装设计师的声望越来越高。
- Collecting, by occupying spare time so constructively, makes a person contented, with no time for boredom. 如此富有意义地利用业余时间来进行收藏,会使人怡然自得,无暇烦恼。
- The HKSAR will continue to participate constructively in these activities. 香港会继续积极参与这些活动。
- Old people awaken early in the morning.老年人早晨醒得早。
- Please awaken me at six.请于六点叫醒我。
- They plan to meet again in Rome very soon to begin substantive negotiations.他们计划不久在罗马再次会晤以开始实质性的谈判。
- A president needs substantive advice,but he also requires emotional succor. 一个总统需要实质性的建议,但也需要感情上的支持。
- Her eyebrow is well penciled.她的眉毛画得很好。
- With an eyebrow raised,he seemed divided between surprise and amusement.他一只眉毛扬了扬,似乎既感到吃惊,又觉有趣。
- He opened his mouth to make a caustic retort.他张嘴开始进行刻薄的反击。
- He enjoys making caustic remarks about other people.他喜欢挖苦别人。
- I can testify to this man's veracity and good character.我可以作证,此人诚实可靠品德良好。
- There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence.没有理由怀疑证据的真实性。
- The commissioner has issued a warrant for her arrest.专员发出了对她的逮捕令。
- He was tapped for police commissioner.他被任命为警务处长。
- He tried hard to be urbane.他极力作出彬彬有礼的神态。
- Despite the crisis,the chairman's voice was urbane as usual.尽管处于危机之中,董事长的声音还象通常一样温文尔雅。
- The current survey will have a wider geographical spread.当前的调查将在更广泛的地域范围內进行。
- These birds have a wide geographical distribution.这些鸟的地理分布很广。
- Turtles like to bask in the sun.海龟喜欢曝于阳光中。
- In winter afternoons,he likes to bask in the sun in his courtyard.冬日的午后,他喜欢坐在院子晒太阳。
- I have never been to that city,,ereby I don't know much about it.我从未去过那座城市,因此对它不怎么熟悉。
- He became a British citizen,thereby gaining the right to vote.他成了英国公民,因而得到了投票权。
- They are accusing the teacher of political bias in his marking.他们在指控那名教师打分数有政治偏见。
- He had a bias toward the plan.他对这项计划有偏见。
- Stereotypes represent designer or researcher biases and assumptions, rather than factual data. 它代表设计师或者研究者的偏见和假设,而不是实际的数据。 来自About Face 3交互设计精髓
- The net effect of biases on international comparisons is easily summarized. 偏差对国际比较的基本影响容易概括。
- He could not expunge the incident from his memory.他无法忘掉这件事。
- Remember that you can expunge anything you find undesirable.记住,你可以除去任何你发现令你讨厌的东西。
- This raincoat is made of very durable material.这件雨衣是用非常耐用的料子做的。
- They frequently require more major durable purchases.他们经常需要购买耐用消费品。
- Be careful with that sharp axe.那把斧子很锋利,你要当心。
- The edge of this axe has turned.这把斧子卷了刃了。
- The article is a slander on ordinary working people.那篇文章是对普通劳动大众的诋毁。
- He threatened to go public with the slander.他威胁要把丑闻宣扬出去。
- In their anger they forget all the partisan quarrels.愤怒之中,他们忘掉一切党派之争。
- The numerous newly created partisan detachments began working slowly towards that region.许多新建的游击队都开始慢慢地向那里移动。
- Do you know where these rumours emanated from? 你知道谣言出自何处吗? 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The rumor emanated from Chicago. 谣言来自芝加哥。 来自《现代英汉综合大词典》
- There was a sanctuary of political refugees behind the hospital.医院后面有一个政治难民的避难所。
- Most countries refuse to give sanctuary to people who hijack aeroplanes.大多数国家拒绝对劫机者提供庇护。
- The new drug has not yet been licensed in the US. 这种新药尚未在美国获得许可。
- Is that gun licensed? 那支枪有持枪执照吗?
- The gulf between the two leaders cannot be bridged.两位领导人之间的鸿沟难以跨越。
- There is a gulf between the two cities.这两座城市间有个海湾。
- The committee endorsed an initiative by the chairman to enter discussion about a possible merger. 委员会通过了主席提出的新方案,开始就可能进行的并购进行讨论。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The government has broadly endorsed a research paper proposing new educational targets for 14-year-olds. 政府基本上支持建议对14 岁少年实行新教育目标的研究报告。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- This is our corporate responsibility.这是我们共同的责任。
- His corporate's life will be as short as a rabbit's tail.他的公司的寿命是兔子尾巴长不了。
- The police are responsible for the preservation of law and order.警察负责维持法律与秩序。
- The picture is in an excellent state of preservation.这幅画保存得极为完好。
- David speaks in an authoritative tone.大卫以命令的口吻说话。
- Her smile was warm but authoritative.她的笑容很和蔼,同时又透着威严。
- The amendment was rejected by 207 voters to 143.这项修正案以207票对143票被否决。
- The Opposition has tabled an amendment to the bill.反对党已经就该议案提交了一项修正条款。
- They flew over the unlimited reaches of the Arctic.他们飞过了茫茫无边的北极上空。
- There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris.在技术方面自以为是会很危险。
- They sourced the spoke nuts from our company.他们的轮辐螺帽是从我们公司获得的。
- The spokes of a wheel are the bars that connect the outer ring to the centre.辐条是轮子上连接外圈与中心的条棒。
- The patient got a radical cure in the hospital.病人在医院得到了根治。
- She is radical in her demands.她的要求十分偏激。
- There is an infinitely bright future ahead of us.我们有无限光明的前途。
- The universe is infinitely large.宇宙是无限大的。
- The giant jets that increasingly dominate the world's airways. 越来越称雄于世界航线的巨型喷气机。
- At one point the company bought from Nippon Airways a 727 jet. 有一次公司从日本航空公司买了一架727型喷气机。
- The Russian Revolution represents a landmark in world history.俄国革命是世界历史上的一个里程碑。
- The tower was once a landmark for ships.这座塔曾是船只的陆标。
- My paramount object is to save the Union and destroy slavery.我的最高目标是拯救美国,摧毁奴隶制度。
- Nitrogen is of paramount importance to life on earth.氮对地球上的生命至关重要。
- He was released on bail pending committal proceedings. 他交保获释正在候审。
- to initiate legal proceedings against sb 对某人提起诉讼
- John is favourite to get the nomination for club president.约翰最有希望被提名为俱乐部主席。
- Few people pronounced for his nomination.很少人表示赞成他的提名。
- Roosevelt was elected four times to the presidency of the United States.罗斯福连续当选四届美国总统。
- Two candidates are emerging as contestants for the presidency.两位候选人最终成为总统职位竞争者。
- The brutality of the crime has appalled the public. 罪行之残暴使公众大为震惊。
- a general who was infamous for his brutality 因残忍而恶名昭彰的将军
- They complained of injustice in the way they had been treated.他们抱怨受到不公平的对待。
- All his life he has been struggling against injustice.他一生都在与不公正现象作斗争。
- The report on the accident exonerates the bus driver from any responsibility. 事故的报告认为公共汽车司机是没有任何责任的。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The report on the accident exonerates the company from any responsibility. 事故的报告认为公司是没有任何责任的。 来自互联网
- We cannot ignore such provocations. 对于这种挑衅,我们不能置之不理。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- They must immediately cease all their provocations. 他们必须停止一切挑衅。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- He was reticent about his opinion.他有保留意见。
- He was extremely reticent about his personal life.他对自己的个人生活讳莫如深。
- That is a fact beyond controversy.那是一个无可争论的事实。
- We ran the risk of becoming the butt of every controversy.我们要冒使自己在所有的纷争中都成为众矢之的的风险。
- The marvelous acting compensated for the play's weak script. 本剧的精彩表演弥补了剧本的不足。
- I compensated his loss with money. 我赔偿他经济损失。
- He swore vengeance against the men who murdered his father.他发誓要向那些杀害他父亲的人报仇。
- For years he brooded vengeance.多年来他一直在盘算报仇。
- The problem is ongoing.这个问题尚未解决。
- The issues raised in the report relate directly to Age Concern's ongoing work in this area.报告中提出的问题与“关心老人”组织在这方面正在做的工作有直接的关系。
- After taking the drug she became completely irrational.她在吸毒后变得完全失去了理性。
- There are also signs of irrational exuberance among some investors.在某些投资者中是存在非理性繁荣的征象的。
- There is a concurrence of opinion between them.他们的想法一致。
- The concurrence of their disappearances had to be more than coincidental.他们同时失踪肯定不仅仅是巧合。
- It is too late now to make any dissent.现在提出异议太晚了。
- He felt her shoulders gave a wriggle of dissent.他感到她的肩膀因为不同意而动了一下。
- In fact,a cleaver is a class of ax.实际上,切肉刀也是斧子的一种。
- The cleaver is ground to a very sharp edge.刀磨得飞快。
- We are never late in satisfying him for his labor.我们从不延误付给他劳动报酬。
- He was completely spent after two weeks of hard labor.艰苦劳动两周后,他已经疲惫不堪了。
- We can't risk another confrontation with the union.我们不能冒再次同工会对抗的危险。
- After years of confrontation,they finally have achieved a modus vivendi.在对抗很长时间后,他们最后达成安宁生存的非正式协议。
- They marched to the factory and formed a picket.他们向工厂前进,并组成了纠察队。
- Some of the union members did not want to picket.工会的一些会员不想担任罢工纠察员。
- Uncritical trust is my nemesis.盲目的相信一切害了我自己。
- Inward suffering is the worst of Nemesis.内心的痛苦是最厉害的惩罚。
- The sky this morning is a mosaic of blue and white.今天早上的天空是幅蓝白相间的画面。
- The image mosaic is a troublesome work.图象镶嵌是个麻烦的工作。
- These injustices embittered her even more. 不公平使她更加受苦。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The artist was embittered by public neglect. 大众的忽视于那位艺术家更加难受。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- Some militant leaders want to merge with white radicals. 一些好斗的领导人要和白人中的激进派联合。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- The worry is that the radicals will grow more intransigent. 现在人们担忧激进分子会变得更加不妥协。 来自辞典例句
- Such jokes tend to reinforce racial stereotypes. 这样的笑话容易渲染种族偏见。
- It makes me sick to read over such stereotypes devoid of content. 这种空洞无物的八股调,我看了就讨厌。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
- He is said to be the most passionate man.据说他是最有激情的人。
- He is very passionate about the project.他对那个项目非常热心。
- He attacked the indulgence shown to religious dissenters. 他抨击对宗教上持不同政见者表现出的宽容。 来自《简明英汉词典》
- (The dissenters would have allowed even more leeway to the Secretary.) (持异议者还会给行政长官留有更多的余地。) 来自英汉非文学 - 行政法
- Lectures will be interspersed with practical demonstrations. 讲课中将不时插入实际示范。
- The new military government has banned strikes and demonstrations. 新的军人政府禁止罢工和示威活动。
- I feel it is my civic duty to vote.我认为投票选举是我作为公民的义务。
- The civic leaders helped to forward the project.市政府领导者协助促进工程的进展。
- The ethics of his profession don't permit him to do that.他的职业道德不允许他那样做。
- Personal ethics and professional ethics sometimes conflict.个人道德和职业道德有时会相互抵触。
- The power elite inside the government is controlling foreign policy.政府内部的一群握有实权的精英控制着对外政策。
- We have a political elite in this country.我们国家有一群政治精英。
- A job fell vacant in the accounting department.财会部出现了一个空缺。
- There's an accounting error in this entry.这笔账目里有差错。
- The organization certainly prospered under his stewardship. 不可否认,这个组织在他的管理下兴旺了起来。
- Last, but certainly not least, are the issues of stewardship and ethics. 最后,但当然不是微不足道的,是工作和道德规范的问题。