听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:当地方新闻消亡时，民主也会消亡，希望你会喜欢！
【演讲者及介绍】Chuck Plunkett
查克·普伦基特提倡提高公众意识，支持高质量的地方新闻。
【演讲主题】当地方新闻消亡时，民主也会消亡
When local news dies, so does democracy
【中英文字幕】
翻译者Ivana Korom 校对者Krystian Aparta
00:16
I've been a journalist for more than 23 years, at the "Arkansas Democrat-Gazette," the "Pittsburgh Tribune Review" and most recently, "The Denver Post."
我从事记者这个行业 已经超过 23 年了， 我曾工作过的报社有 《阿肯色民主公报》、 《匹兹堡论坛报》， 之后我最近在《丹佛邮报》工作。
00:23
(Applause)
（掌声）
00:26
When I started at "The Denver Post" in 2003, it was among the country's 10 largest newspapers, with an impressive subscriber base and nearly 300 journalists. At the time, I was in my 30s. Any ambitious journalist that age aspires to work for one of the big national papers, like "The New York Times" or "The Wall Street Journal." But I was simply blown away by my first few weeks at "The Denver Post," and I thought, "This is going to be my paper. I can make a career right here."
2003 年我最开始 在《丹佛邮报》工作时， 那时它是全国规模最大的 十家报社之一， 有着极其可观的订阅人数 和近 300 名记者。 当年我 30 多岁， 和任何一位差不多年纪 且踌躇满志的记者一样， 有志于能在国家规模的大报社工作—— 像是《纽约时报》或是《华尔街日报》。 但我在《丹佛邮报》最开始 工作的几周 就被他们深深震撼到了， 我当时就想： 这个报社太适合我了， 我定能在这儿成就一番事业。
01:00
Well, seven years passed, we were sold to a hedge fund, Alden Global Capital. Within a few years --
七年过去了， 我们被卖给了一家对冲基金， 奥尔登全球资本。 就这几年——
01:08
(Laughs)
（笑声）
01:10
(Laughter)
（笑声）
01:11
Some of you know this story.
在座有些人都知道这个故事。
01:13
(Laughter)
（笑声）
01:16
Within a few years, buyouts ordered by past and present owners would reduce the newsroom by nearly half. And I understood. The rule of thumb used to be that 80 percent of a newspaper's revenue came from pricy print ads and classifieds. With emerging giants like Google and Facebook and Craigslist, those advertizing dollars were evaporating. The entire industry was undergoing a massive shift from print to digital. Alden's orders were to be digital first. Take advantage of blogs, video and social media. They said that one day, the money we made online would make up for the money we lost in print. But that day never came.
几年间， 由于现今和曾经的股权拥有者收购 导致新闻编辑部的规模近乎减半。 我也能理解。 凭经验估计，一家报社 80% 的收入 都是来源于 昂贵的印刷广告和分类广告。 随着像是谷歌、脸书和克雷格列表 之类的科技巨头的出现， 那些广告收入就像是蒸发了一样。 整个行业都面临着 从纸质印刷到电子报刊的巨大转变。 奥尔登资本的指令是把电子化放第一位。 他们充分利用 博客、视频和社交媒体。 他们说有一天， 我们在线上赚到的利润 会弥补我们在纸刊上的损失。 但那一天从未到来。
02:04
In 2013, we won a Pulitzer Prize for covering the Aurora theater shooting. Alden ordered that more journalists be cut. Again, and again, and again, and again. We were forced to say goodbye to talented, hardworking journalists we considered not just friends but family. Those of us left behind were stretched impossibly thin, covering multiple beats and writing rushed articles. Inside a windowless meeting room in March of 2018, we learned that 30 more would have to go. This paper that once had 300 journalists would now have 70.
在 2013 年，我们因 报道了奥罗拉剧院枪击案 而获得了普利策奖。 但那年，奥尔登资本 却依旧辞退了更多的记者。 一次， 接一次， 又一次， 再一次。 我们被迫和许多 勤奋又有才华的记者说再见。 我们不仅把他们当朋友， 还把他们当作家人。 而我们这些剩下的人 由于人数缩减， 得去报道多个事件，不断赶稿子， 也为此感到身心俱疲。 2018 年 3 月， 在一间没有窗的会议室中， 我们得知还会有 30 名记者被裁。 这个报社曾今有 300 名记者， 如今却只剩下 70 名。
02:53
And it didn't make sense. Here, we'd won multiple Pulitzer Prizes. We shifted our focus from print to digital, we hit ambitious targets and email from the brass talked up the Post's profit margins, which industry experts pegged at nearly 20 percent. So if our company was so successful and so profitable, why was our newsroom getting so much smaller and smaller?
这一点也说不通。 后来，我们又多次获得了普利策奖。 我们将重心 从纸质刊物转移至了电子期刊， 我们完成了有野心的目标， 来自报社上层的邮件 称赞了邮报的利润率， 业界专家估计该数字在 20% 左右。 那么，既然我们公司这么成功， 利润又如此可观， 为什么我们编辑部的人 依旧越来越少呢？
03:22
I knew that what was happening in Colorado was happening around the country. Since 2004, nearly 1,800 newsrooms have closed. You've heard of food deserts. These are news deserts. They are communities, often entire counties, with little to zero news coverage whatsoever. Making matters worse, many papers have become ghost ships, pretending to sail with a newsroom but really just wrapping ads around filler copy. More and more newsrooms are being sold off to companies like Alden. And in that meeting, their intentions couldn't have been clearer. Harvest what you can, throw away what's left.
我清楚，在科罗拉多州发生的事情 也正在全国发生着。 自 2004 年起， 近 1800 家新闻编辑部被关闭。 大家都听说过食物荒漠吧。 （指新鲜食品缺乏或其价格高昂的地区） 这些就是新闻荒漠。 有些社区，通常甚至是整个郡， 只有很少， 或是没有任何的新闻报道。 更糟的是， 很多报纸就像是幽灵船一样， 假装自己有个新闻编辑部， 而实际上只不过 在用广告包裹着无意义的拷贝文章。 后来，越来越多的新闻编辑部 被卖给了像奥尔登资本一样的公司。 那一次会议中， 他们的意图不能更加明显了。 尽可能收获你能从中获利的， 扔掉剩下的。
04:10
So, working in secret with a team of eight writers, we prepared a special Sunday Perspective section on the importance of local news.
所以，我和其他 8 个专栏作者 偷偷地准备了 一个特殊的“周日观点”板块， 内容是地方新闻的重要性。
04:20
(Laughter)
（笑声）
04:22
The Denver rebellion launched like a missile, and went off like a hydrogen bomb.
丹佛的这场抗议活动 开始时像是一颗导弹， 却引起了氢弹一样的效果。
04:27
[In An Extraordinary Act Of Defiance, Denver Post Urges Its Owner To Sell The Paper]
[ 一次非凡的抗议行为， 《丹佛邮报》敦促报社拥有者出售报社 ]
04:31
['Denver Post' Editorial Board Publicly Calls Out Paper's Owner]
[《丹佛邮报》编辑部公然挑战报刊拥有者 ]
04:35
[On The Denver Post, vultures and superheroes]
[《丹佛邮报》，兀鹫与超级英雄]
04:37
(Applause and cheers)
（掌声与欢呼声）
04:41
Clearly, we weren't alone in our outrage. But as expected, I was forced to resign.
很显然，并不只有我们 对现状愤怒不满。 不过，不出意外，我被迫辞职了。
04:48
(Laughter)
（笑声）
04:50
And a year later, nothing's changed. "The Denver Post" is but a few lone journalists doing their admirable best in this husk of a once-great paper.
一年过后，一切如旧。 《丹佛邮报》的记者仍然寥寥无几， 在这个曾辉煌过的报社空壳下 尽己所能地工作。
05:01
Now, at least some of you are thinking to yourself, "So what?" Right? So what? Let this dying industry die. And I kind of get that. For one thing, the local news has been in decline for so long that many of you may not even remember what it's like to have a great local paper. Maybe you've seen "Spotlight" or "The Paper," movies that romanticize what journalism used to be.
现在，你们中有些人肯定在想 “那又怎样？” 对不对？ 那又怎样？ 让这个垂死的行业消失吧。 我也理解你们为什么会这么想。 一方面，地方新闻业 在走下坡路也不是一天两天了， 你们很多人甚至都不记得 有一个高质量的地方报刊 是什么样的了。 你可能听说过 《聚焦》或是《媒体先锋》， 这两部浪漫化旧时新闻业的电影。
05:31
Well, I'm not here to be romantic or nostalgic. I'm here to warn you that when local news dies, so does our democracy. And that should concern you --
但我不是来这儿 耽于浪漫或是怀旧的。 我来这儿是为了警告大家： 当地方新闻消失之时， 我们的民主也将不复存在。 这是你们应该担心的情况——
05:42
(Applause and cheers)
（掌声与欢呼声）
05:50
And that should concern you, regardless of whether you subscribe. Here's why. A democracy is a government of the people. People are the ultimate source of power and authority. A great local newsroom acts like a mirror. Its journalists see the community and reflect it back. That information is empowering. Seeing, knowing, understanding -- this is how good decisions are made.
不管你是否订阅报纸， 你们都应对此感到担忧。 原因如下。 民主是人民的政府。 人民是权力的最基本的来源。 一个好的地方新闻编剧部 充当着镜子的角色。 记者观察并反映社区中的情况。 这样的信息能赋予人力量。 看见、了解、理解—— 这样才能制定出好的决策。
06:20
When you have a great local paper, you have journalists sitting in on every city council meeting. Listening in to state house and senate hearings. Those important but, let's face it, sometimes devastatingly boring committee hearings.
如果你有一个很棒的本地报社， 你就会有记者坐在那里， 参与每一个市议会、 州议会和参议院听证会。 那些重要的，但说实话 有时也是无聊到令人绝望的 委员会听证会。
06:35
(Laughter)
（笑声）
06:36
Journalists discover the flaws and ill-conceived measures and those bills fail, because the public was well-informed. Readers go to the polls and they know the pros and cons behind every ballot measure, because journalists did the heavy lifting for them. Even better, researchers have found that reading a local paper can mobilize 13 percent of nonvoters to vote. Thirteen percent.
记者们能发现 不完善且考虑不周的举措， 之后当民众掌握了足够多的信息， 那些议案就不会被通过。 报刊读者到投票站去选举时 就已经了解 每张选票背后的利弊了， 因为记者们已经替他们 整理好了这些繁琐的信息。 更好的是， 研究者们发现阅读本地报纸 能鼓动 13% 不参加选举投票的人去投票。 13% 。
07:03
(Applause)
（掌声）
07:08
That's the number that can change the outcome of many elections. When you don't have a great local paper, voters are left stranded at the polls, confused, trying to make their best guess based on a paragraph of legalese. Flawed measures pass. Well-conceived but highly technical measures fail. Voters become more partisan.
这可是一个能改变 很多选举结果的数字。 如果你没有一个好的地方报社， 投票人就会在投票站前面不知所措， 满脸困惑， 只能根据大段的法律术语去 做出他们最佳的猜测。 有缺陷的法案就是这样被通过的。 而考虑周全但措辞过于专业的法案 却没能被通过。 投票人们更容易 盲目且坚定地支持某些政客或观点。
07:33
Recently in Colorado, our governor's race had more candidates than anyone can remember. In years past, journalists would have thoroughly vetted, scrutinized, fact-checked, profiled, debated every contender in the local paper. "The Denver Post" did its best. But in the place of past levels of rigorous reporting and research, the public is increasingly left to interpret dog-and-pony-show stump speeches and clever campaign ads for themselves. With advertizing costing what it does, electability comes down to money. So by the end of the primaries, the only candidates left standing were the wealthiest and best-funded. Many experienced and praise-worthy candidates never got oxygen, because when local news declines, even big-ticket races become pay-to-play.
最近在科罗拉多州， 我们州长一职的竞选， 参与竞选者的数量是史无前例的。 在往些年， 记者们会通过地方报纸 对每位竞选人进行仔细审查、 核查事实信息、 概述竞选人情况，并进行辩论。 《丹佛邮报》 就在竭尽所能做到最好。 但没有了以往的那种细致报道与调查， 公众逐渐被迫去尝试自己解读那些 外表炫丽、内容空洞的政治演讲 和智能的竞选广告。 而政治宣传的高昂费用 导致了竞选最终 只取决于竞选人的财力大小。 于是到了初选结束时， 台上剩下的都是那些 最富有且拥有最大资金支持的竞选者。 很多富有经验、值得称赞的竞选者 却失去了继续角逐的机会， 因为当地方新闻业走向衰退时， 就算是这样的竞选活动也变成了 谁有钱，谁入场。
08:30
Is it any surprise that our new governor was the candidate worth more than 300 million dollars? Or that billionaire businessmen like Donald Trump and Howard Schultz can seize the political stage? I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about free and fair elections.
这些事实会让你们感到意外吗？ 比如，我们的新州长身价 超过 3 亿美元？ 或是亿万富翁唐纳德 · 特朗普（Donald Trump） 和霍华德 · 舒尔茨（Howard Schultz） 能占据政治舞台？ 我并不认为我们的国父 会认为这些是自由公平的选举。
08:50
(Applause and cheers)
（掌声与欢呼声）
08:57
Now this is exactly why we can't just rely on the big national papers, like "The Journal" and "The Times" and "The Post." Those are tremendous papers, and we need them now, my God, more than ever before. But there is no world in which they could cover every election in every county in the country. No. The newsroom best equipped to cover your local election ought to be your local newsroom. If you're lucky and still have one.
这就是我们不能仅仅依靠 大型国家级报刊的原因， 像是《华尔街日报》 《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》。 那些都是规模极大的报纸， 我的天啊， 我们现在比以往更需要它们。 但它们绝没有可能 涵盖国家内每个郡县的选举新闻。 不可能。 最具备条件来报道当地选举情况的 应该是地方性的新闻编辑部。 如果你足够幸运 还有这么一个报社的话。
09:29
When election day is over, a great local paper is still there, waiting like a watchdog. When they're being watched, politicians have less power, police do right by the public, even massive corporations are on their best behavior.
当选举结束后， 一个好的地方报刊还依然在那儿 充当着监察者的角色。 当有人在监察时， 政客的权利就被削弱了， 警察会公正的对待大众， 哪怕是大型企业 也能遵纪守法，做到最好。
09:46
This mechanism that for generations has helped inform and guide us no longer functions the way it used to. You know intimately what the poisoned national discourse feels like, what a mockery of reasoned debate it has become. This is what happens when local newsrooms shutter and communities across the country go unwatched and unseen.
这种曾给我们提供信息 并指引了我们数代人的机制 现如今不再像以前那样发挥作用了。 你们比谁都清楚 有害政治演讲的坏处， 真是对理性辩论的讽刺啊。 这就是当地方新闻走向衰微， 举国社区未受到监察时 会发生的情况。
10:12
Until we recognize that the decline of local news has serious consequences for our society, this situation will not improve. A properly staffed local newsroom isn't profitable, and in this age of Google and Facebook, it's not going to be. If newspapers are vital to our democracy, then we should fund them like they're vital to our democracy.
这种情况不会好转， 除非我们能意识到地方新闻业的衰微 及其对我们的社会具有非常严重的影响。 一个人员齐备的 地方新闻编辑部是无法盈利的， 尤其在这个谷歌与脸书的时代， 永远不可能。 但若是新闻业 对我们的民主如此重要， 那么我们就应该提供 与之重要性相称的资金。
10:37
(Applause and cheers)
（掌声与欢呼声）
10:43
We cannot stand by and let our watchdogs be put down. We can't let more communities vanish into darkness. It is time to debate a public funding option before the fourth estate disappears, and with it, our grand democratic experiment. We need much more than a rebellion. It is time for a revolution.
我们不能冷眼旁观， 看着我们的监察者被打倒。 我们不能让更多的社区 消失在黑暗中。 是时候在我们的第四权消失之前， 在我们伟大的民主实验消失之前， 讨论出一个公共筹资的方案了。 我们所需的不止是一次抗议。 我们需要一场革命。
11:05
Thank you.
谢谢大家。
11:06
(Applause and cheers)
（掌声与欢呼声）
