Sample Essay

Anything that makes a country’s government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation’s attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don’t see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.( 694 words)

[范文正文]

任何能使一个国家的政府更透明的事情无疑总是一件好事情，至少在民主国家中是如此。这些社会通过得以看到他们所选举的政府官员在做些什么而获益匪浅。但是，如果只是笼统地说政府程序转播得越多，社会就会获益更多，那么，这便忽视了这样一个事实，即有些时候，转播得越少越好。有些类型的程序如果进行转播，则甚至会受到负面影响，使社会处于更糟糕的境地，而不是带来任何裨益。有些类型的政府程序应获得更多的电视报道，但有些应该减少报道，以确保这些程序能恰当地进行。

转播所有政府程序会引发负面作用，这方面的例子是美国对所指控的谋杀者和前美式足球全国联赛超级明星O.J.辛普逊的审判。审判全程转播，成为媒体一大焦点，在整个审判进程中吸引了全国的注意力。律师们清楚地知道，整个审判程序被转播，他们的所作所为几乎像电影演戏那样。媒体的焦光灯如此穷追不舍，以致于那种马戏团般的氛围甚至波及到主审法官。电视镜头的存在以及密集的媒体报道效果致使这场审判史无前例，严重影响到这次审判的正常进程。参与者在镜头面前装腔作势，根本不专注于手头应做的工作。许多人会认为，很大程度上由于电视的缘故，在这场特定的审判中，正义并未得到申张。

另一方面，有关政府日常实际工作的电视转播能让人们直接地深入了解政府实际上是怎样运转的。由于电视镜头每天都在那里，政府官员们便变得习以为常，不再会因为它们的存在而受太大的影响。这样，社会就能获益，因为民众能够亲眼目睹实际所在发生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那样藏匿在一层秘密的面纱背后，从而使人无从知晓所被选举的官员的神秘行为。

政府程序电视转播越多越好，这一陈述的另一个问题是，这一陈述认为当政府程序被转播时，人们实际上正观看着这些程序。美国有一个电视频道，每天播放国会程序，但看这一频道的人寥寥无几。只有当某些重大问题需要进行辨论或进行投票时，才会有大量的人观看这一频道。纯粹电视播放政府程序并不会影响到社会，除非社会观看这些事件。