Iue "In many countrie it i now poible to turn on the televiion and view government at work. Watching thee proceeding can help people undertand the iue that affect their live. The more kind of government proceeding - trial, debate, meeting, etc. - that are televied, the more ociety will benefit."
Anything that make a country’ government more tranparent i certainly a good thing, at leat in democratic countrie. Thee ocietie have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government official in action. But to broadly tate that the more government proceeding that are televied, the more ociety will benefit i to ignore the fact that ometime, le i more. Some type of proceeding can even be adverely affected if televied, making ociety wore off rather than giving it a benefit. Some type of governmental proceeding hould receive more televied coverage, but there are ome that hould probably receive le to enure that they are properly conducted.
One example of the poible negative effect of televiing all governmental proceeding wa the trial in the United State of accued murderer and former National Football League upertar O.J. Simpon. The trial wa televied and became a huge media pectacle, captivating the nation’ attention during the entire trial. Attorney were well aware that the proceeding were being televied and almot behaved a if they were acting in a movie. The potlight wa o unrelenting that the circu atmophere affected even the judge. The preence of televiion camera and the effect of the intene media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adverely affected the natural progreion of the trial. The participant played to the camera rather than focuing on the tak at hand. Largely becaue of televiion, many people would argue that jutice wa not erved during thi particular trial.WWw.hAOZUowEN.com
On the other hand, televiion of the day-to-day working of government in action provide direct inight into how a government actually work. Becaue the televiion camera are there everyday, the governmental official become accutomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their preence. In thi way, ociety benefit becaue they are able to ee what i happening a it happen. The government in action i no longer hidden behind uch a veil of ecrecy o that no one know the myteriou way of their elected official.
One of the problem with tating that the more governmental proceeding that are televied, the better of a ociety i, i that people might come to believe that they are eeing everything when in fact, a televiion camera can only ee part of what i happening no matter how many camera there are. Much of what happen in government take place "behind the cene", not necearily in full view of the camera in the meeting place. While to an extent "eeing i believing", quite often it i what you don’t ee that make the difference. Merely televiing governmental proceeding certainly enhance undertanding, but to fully undertand the proce a peron would actually have to actively participate in that proce.
Another problem with the tatement that the more televied governmental proceeding, the better, i that it aume that people actually watch the proceeding when they are broadcat. There i a televiion channel in the United State that broadcat Congreional proceeding every day, but few people watch it. Only when ome big iue come up for a debate or for a vote doe a ignificant number of people tune in. To merely televie governmental proceeding will not affect ociety unle ociety watche thee event.
Society can certainly benefit from the televiion coverage of certain governmental proceeding. To actually ee the elected official in action can bring an extra element of undertanding into the inner working of a government. Politician can be held accountable for their action while they are being "watched" by the televiion camera. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the buine of the people. But not all governmental proceeding hould be televied. There are time when ecrecy i an abolute requirement for making ure that the correct deciion are made.
"在许多国家，人们现在可以打开电视，便可以看到政府是如何运作的。观看到这样一些程序能够帮助人们理解那些影响到其生活的问题。电视转播政府程序——审判，辩论，会议等不一而足——的种类越多，则社会将会获益更多。"
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。
被电视转播的政府程序越多，一个社会就会变得更好，此番陈述的问题之一是，人们可能会以为他们能目睹一切，但在实际上，电视镜头所捕捉到的可能只是所有发生的事情的一部分，无论有多少电视镜头。政府内发生的相当一部分事情是在"幕后"完成的，并不必定是在开会场所众目睽睽之下进行的。尽管在某种程度上"眼见为实"，但在相当多的时候，不为你所见的事情才起着决定性的作用。纯粹去电视转播政府的各项程序，当然能增进理解，但要充分理解某一过程，则人们须实际上积极地参与到这一过程中来。
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。
社会无疑能得益于电视对某些政府程序的报道。亲眼目睹民选官员处理政府事务，能带来一个额外的理解因素，来弄清政府的内在运转机制。当政治家们被置于电视镜头的"注视"时，可以使其对其行为负责。他们在处理公众事务时再也无法隐名埋姓。但政府程序并非应该全部进行电视转播。有些时候，为了确保能作出正确的决策，隐秘应成为一种绝对的要求。