外文文献翻译

《外文文献翻译》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文文献翻译（9页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、毕业设计/论文外 文 文 献 翻 译院 系 新闻与法学学院 专 业 班 级 姓 名 文 献 出 处 Online Information Review 评 分 指 导 教 师 2016年 12 月 6 日毕业设计/论文外文文献翻译要求：1外文文献翻译的内容应与毕业设计/论文课题相关。2外文文献翻译的字数：非英语专业学生应完成与毕业设计/论文课题内容相关的不少于2000汉字的外文文献翻译任务（其中，汉语言文学专业、艺术类专业不作要求），英语专业学生应完成不少于2000汉字的二外文献翻译任务。格式按华中科技大学武昌分校本科毕业设计/论文撰写规范的要求撰写。3外文文献翻译附于开题报告之后:第一部分为

2、译文，第二部分为外文文献原文，译文与原文均需单独编制页码(底端居中)并注明出处。本附件为封面,封面上不得出现页码。4外文文献翻译原文由指导教师指定，同一指导教师指导的学生不得选用相同的外文原文。第一部分：译文 媒介政策的范式转变：一种新的传播政策范式 传播和媒介政策的出现 传播政策的出现始于追求国家利益与工商业企业利益之间的互动。政府和产业界通过特权、 法规和一些限制来追求共同利益.一般而言,政策指的是为实现某些目标而有意识制定的（公 共）方案，以及实现方案的方法和时间进度表。政府政策的特定内容反映了特定时期和地点政 府与产业界的交易以及权力与利益之间的平衡。从这个层面上说，虽然在20世纪,政

3、府在形式 上变得更加民主，全球化的浪潮也愈演愈烈，政府和产业界的权力和利益之间的交易并没有多 大改变.然而即使是这样，媒介政策领域也发生了巨大的变化，这尤其反应在传播技术的演变 以及在“后工业”社会（或是更多地被称为“信息社会”）中传播重要性的提高。虽然在几百年之前，国家就出于控制、财政和战略的目的，对交通和旅游进行干预和管制， 但如果说传播政策在自19世纪中期电话发明以来的一系列电子媒介出现以前就有了，那就错了. 在本文中,我们将传播政策阶段分为三个连续的阶段:(1)新兴传播业政策阶段，（2）公共 服务媒介政策阶段，和（3)新传播政策范式阶段。 传播政策的一般形态媒介政策的主要元素撇开时间的

4、变化与环境的差异不说，媒介政策和电信政策的主要元素包括:所追求的目标 或目的、界定目标的价值观念和标准、被政策规范的各种内容和传播服务;不同的传播渠道(主 要有印刷出版、有线电视、卫星电视、广播和电信）以及相应的政策措施和实施方法（主要包 含于法律、法规、自律和市场惯例）。这个社会传播系统的普遍模型是从政策制定者的角度来描绘的，这些元素也是人为组合到 一起的，它并不能被普遍性地运用到所有的国家。另外这个模型也显得有点过时，因为各个国 家的社会体制和传播技术在一段时间内会发生重大的改变。为了阐明这个模型所表达的信息和 解释的方便，我们首先需要回顾一下政策制定的几个连续阶段，因为这些政策不仅在传播

5、系统 上留下了历史痕迹，也影响着当今媒介政策所遇到的挑战.我们将首先讨论早期新兴的媒介和 传播政策阶段，这个阶段大约持续到二战。它不仅打开了改变世界的大门，而且与电视这个大 众媒介交相辉映地发展着。新型传播政策：政策制定者仍然面临许多困境和未解决的问题。对于一个国家来说,这些主要的问题有： 定义公共领域媒介的范围和目标；经济手段、法规和自律等政策方式的选择；为所有媒介领域寻找一致的原则和管制框架;如何定义和制定国家文化媒介政策；如何平衡传播自由以及社会需求。政策融合？在科技的影响下,通过选择相同的目标、原则和方式应用于统一的管制法规，媒介政策是 否回趋于融合？这样的观点已经获得了广泛的支持25

6、并得以施行（如2002年英国传播法案）,但 是这个问题并不能以简单地以是”或不是来回答。虽然有理由淡化各种媒介之间的界限， 但对所有不同的媒介服务都使用同一种法规是没有必要的.欧洲现在的趋势是：尽管鼓励整体 性的政策思考,但也鼓励发展各国独立的国家法规权利机构来控制公共领域的媒介运作。当前 有足够的理由要求拥有一个连贯一致的政策体系（特别对待自由和多样性），但这并不意味着整 齐划一地处理所有媒介内容(广告、艺术、新闻、色情等等）。因为媒介内容与受众都存在着 明显的不同。所以,针对不同的用途使用不同的法规是可能的、甚至是必须的。公众的传播自 由还是非常重要的,也不应该让任何一个单一的机构对某种传

7、播方式施加过多的压力，而且对 待不同的媒介也应该有特例和特殊的措施。另外，同样重要的一个方面是：为了保障传播所影 响的受众/公民的利益,我们也应该保留一块政治和社会文化价值观的领域。 新传播政策范式的核心原则 尽管还存在许多未知情况，我们仍有余地为兴起的新政策范式的核心原则提一些暂时的看 法。这些看法基于科技、政策和经济变化的趋势,以及现存公认的社会和政治限制.虽然公共 服务广播和普遍电信服务还不太可能从政治议事日程上消失，技术融合、传播市场自由化以及 信息和传播的迅速扩张要求我们对传播政策进行一次不同的概念化思考。如果对未来的估计是 正确的，以下三个概念将对新传播政策模型起核心作用：传播自由

8、、使用权、和控制传播自由应该是未来所有传播政策的主要目标。传播自由可以被表述为负面和正面两个方 面。对前者来说，它指信息传播者独立于政府（没有审查)，独立于经济或阻碍讯息自由交流 的其它力量（如，经济垄断和其他主导市场的力量），也包括社会和政治压力。从正面来说, 自由指人在社会中所能进行的自由活动，如参加政治议题的市民辩论，或表达艺术创意.这两 方面的规定都是政策目标所需要的。传播法规与传播系统在许多不同的方面相关,即，传播业的市场结构，传播参与者的市场 行为或传播的内容。传播自由的负面主要与市场结构和市场行为相关，而正面自由主要与内容 和使用权相关，而后者也是我们关注的第二个核心原则。对于互

9、联网来说，三个核心原则中的两个对其政策制定有一定启发,即，自由和使用权。 互联网从一开始起就带有自由的属性，虽然如果没有政府最初的赞助，它也许不会发展至今。 由于多种原因,互联网的使用权已经被广泛的接纳为政策目标。尽管互联网政策的发展与前文 所提到的传播政策历史有些许相似,但未来的互联网政策依旧不可预测。互联网第一阶段的发 展以经济和商业利益为目标，而我们现在进入的是以控制公众利益为目标的第二阶段。目前还 有很多问题等待解决:对传播行为和内容(公众利益）采取什么样的控制手段？什么样的负责 限度是适合的？任何新出现的传播政策范式都必须对上述问题做出回应.文献来源：本文原载于欧洲传播杂志(Euro

10、pean Journal of Communication，2003，182：181 - 207）.本文的早期 版本曾在1998年作为会议论文发表，并被编入R. Picard的演变中的媒介市场2第二部分:外文文献原文 Media Policy Paradigm ShiftsTowards a New Communications Policy Paradigm The emergence of communications and media policyThe origins of communications policies lie in the interaction between

11、the pursuit of national interests by states and the operations of commercial/ industrial enterprises。 Both government and industry have sought mutual advantage by way of privileges， regulations and restrictions。 Policies in general refer to conscious (public） projects for achieving some goal， togeth

12、er with the proposed means and time schedule for achieving them。 The specific content of government policies reflects the deal made in the particular time and place and the balance of power and advantage between government and industry。 At this level of generality, not a great deal has changed, desp

13、ite the general transition during the 20th century to more democratic forms of government and increasing trends towards globalization。 Even so, in the field of media policy there have been significant developments, especially reflecting the changing technologies of communication and the increased im

14、portance of communication in postindustrial societies， which are more often known as information societies。Although for centuries there have been state interventions and regulations relating to transport and travel, for purposes of control, finance or for strategic reasons, it would be anachronistic

15、 to speak of communications policies before the series of electronic inventions beginning with the electric telegraph in the mid-19th century. In this article, we identify three main phases of communications policymaking。 We may label these consecutive phases as （I） the phase of emerging communicati

16、ons industry policy， （II) the phase of public service media policy, and (III) the phase of a new communications policy paradigm。The general shape of communications policyThe main elements or factors of policy for media and telecommunications policy, leaving aside the question of changes over time an

17、d differences between contexts, consist of： the goals or objectives to be pursued； the values and criteria by which goals are defined or recognized； the variouscontent and communication services to which policy applies; the different distribution services (mainly print publishing, cable, satellite a

18、nd broadcast dissemination and telecommunications); and finally the appropriate policy measures and means of implementation （mainly embodied in law， regulation, self-regulation or market practices）。The goal of economic welfare has been subject to changing definitions as far as communication is conce

19、rned. Minimum requirements are for infrastructure provisions that allow a national economy to function efficiently in production and market terms. Increasingly, under conditions of an information society, the communication system is an integral part of the economy and forms an important and elaborat

20、e market in its own right。 Relevant values aside from general ones of efficiency， employment and profitability include those of innovation and interconnection.This general model of the social communications system viewed according to the perspective of policy-makers is an artificial composite of ele

21、ments that will not apply to all national cases very well. It is also anachronistic， combining national experiences over a long period during which society and communication technology have been changing considerably. In order to make more sense of the information and interpretations it summarizes，

22、we need to sketch the successive phases of policymaking which have each left their mark on communication systems and still exert an influence on the way the challenges of today are handled. In the description that follows we make an initial distinction between an early stage of emerging policy for m

23、edia and communications that lasted approximately until the watershed of the Second World War, which opened the way for change in much of the world and also coincided with the rise of television as a major mass medium.New communication policy:Policy makers still face many difficulties and unsolved p

24、roblems。 For a country, these main problems: the scope and objectives of the definition of public domain media； economic means, regulation and self-discipline, policy choice; for all areas of the media for consistent principle and regulation framework， how to define and develop the national culture

25、media policy； how to balance the communication freedom and social demand. Policy convergence? Under the influence of science and technology， through the choice of the same objectives, principles and methods applied to a unified regulatory laws and regulations, whether the media policy tends to conve

26、rgence？ This view has been widely supported and can be implemented （for example， the British Communications Act of 2002）, but the problem can not be answered with a simple ”yes or no” to answer the 25 question. While there are reasons to dilute the boundaries between different media， it is not neces

27、sary to use the same regulations for all different media services。 Europe is now the trend is: Despite the encouragement of the overall policy thinking, but also to encourage the development of independent state laws and regulations of the country to control the media operations of the public sphere

28、。 Currently there are enough reason to ask to have a coherent policy system （especially towards freedom and diversity）, but this does not mean that the whole uniform handling of all media content (advertising， art， news, sex， etc.). Because the media content and the audience are obviously different。

29、 So it is possible and necessary to use different regulations for different purposes. Public freedom of communication is still very important， and should not allow any single institution to put too much pressure on a certain mode of transmission， but also the treatment of different media should have

30、 a special case and special measures。 In addition， one important aspect is that， in order to protect the interests of the audience / citizens, we should also keep a political and social cultural values.Looking for the new policy paradigmAlthough much remains uncertain, there is scope for making a pr

31、ovisional judgement concerning the core principles of the emerging paradigm。 This can be based on certain clear trends in technology， policy and economics, plus a recognition of social and political inputs and constraints。 Although public service broadcasting and universal tele-communications servic

32、e are unlikely to disappear from the political agenda, convergence in technology, liberalization of communication markets and information and communication abundance demand a different conceptualization of communications policy. Freedom of communication should remain the main objective of any commun

33、ications policy to be designed. Freedom can be expressed negatively as well as positively （Lichtenberg， 1990）。 In the former respect it refers to the independence of communication participants from government （no censorship), from economic and other forces hindering exchange of messages （e.g. econom

34、ic monopolies and other dominant market positions） as well as from social and political pressure groups。 In its positive aspect， freedom refers to all those activities people in society can be enabled to do with their freedom, e.g。 to contribute to the civic debate on politics or to express artistic

35、 creativity. There should be provision for both aspects as policy goals.Communication regulation relates to different dimensions of the communications system, that is the structure of the communication market， the market conduct of communication participants or the content of communication （see McQu

36、ail, 1992： 8796). Negative freedom of communication relates mainly to market structure and market conduct, whereas positive freedom primarily relates to content and also requires attention to our second principle， that of access.As far as the Internet is concerned， the implications for policy are cl

37、ear enough in respect of two of the three basic principles advocated， namely freedom and access. The Internet began in freedom, although it might not have done so without government sponsorship originally。 Access to the Internet has been widely adopted as a suitable goal of policy, for various reaso

38、ns。 The story of emerging policy for the Internet cannot yet be told， although there are some parallels with the history of communications policy as told in this article。 The first stage was one of encouragement to develop for economic and industrial reasons and we are entering a second stage where

39、reasons for control on public interest grounds are beginning to assert themselves。 However， large questions remain to be answered about what form of control can or should be applied to conduct or content （in the public interest）and about what kind and degree of accountability， if any, is appropriate

40、。 Any new paradigm for communications policy will have to indicate some answers。 Source: This article appeared in the European Communication magazine （European 2003, Journal of Communication, 18-2：181 207)。 An earlier version of this article was published in 1998 as a conference paper, and was incorporated into the R. Picard in the evolution of the media market”III