issue 69

桌子上的梨 · 发表于 2012-8-3 13:01:02

69

Some people believe that it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

Government is the convergence of public power to improve citizens' life and security. As the government manager, the authority should serve for citizens but not rule or fool them, with no need to say undue freedom to withhold information from them. In fact, we rewrote our regulatory and legal system in the past decades essentially to banish autocratic judgment from government decisions. However, we have to admit that, in many cases, withhold information from the public for some time is the only practical alternative.

Given our history, these are extremely hard tasks, and we are forced to pursue more important goals than plain honest. For example, in world war two, the White House carried out a information war which disseminate false information targeting on making delusions to disturb the enemy's morale and it finally work out. In this case, discussing with all the people and asking for their opinions will ruin this plan. Indeed, for all the world's governments, attempts to free all the war-connected information flow are not only futile but counter productive as well. Another example is high-tech, can NASA uncover all its core technologies？ Withhold something from the public, with the progress of modern society, it is not necessary a bad thing.

Furthermore, in some circumstances, people who strongly disagree with the hidden information take the position that interest of political leaders and people are opposite. In my view the two are not mutually exclusive. Churchill was thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, he gave courage to an entire nation and proved himself brilliantly to lead the British people. Yet, achievement of defeat German would have been impossible without his leading. On the other hand, anyone who disobey people's will and seek for their own interest got their own lessons in the end, for example, Nicolson was deposited after cheating on the American.

However, it could backfire if hidden-and- uncover strategy is mistakenly touted as a kind of "morning after" treatment that allows people to relax their guard and engage in risky political engagement. There is no denying that government official who is actually at the helm in the government should make the critical decisions and they should obey the will of people they serve. It turns out, however, that not every one who reached the pinnacle of leadership was a gleaming example of self-awareness, empathy, self-discipline and other qualities that mark an elevated EQ. Especially when considering most politicians seem driven today by their interest in being elected and reelected—that is , in short –term survival—rather than by any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency or country. Another problem is that government officials often pursue self- serving agendas other than public interest. There is a great chance that political leaders will cheat on its people. And these political ills are here to stay, because they spring from human nature. Thus, we should never ignore these risks.

When it comes to this topic, there's no single measure that's fully adequate but a combination of measures taken together can make our access right(知情权？) relatively secure. If we really mean to lead, and to bring about a world more or less clear to us, we may enforce our political and legal systems and entrust more rights to public media.

.

1.因为政府的作用是服务公民的，人民不能接受自己被愚弄欺骗，但是在很多现实的情况里，暂时把信息封锁是不得已的选择。

2.首先，我们看一些例子。二战期间盟军采取的信息封锁，并且对于法西斯国家实行虚假宣传以动摇他们的士气，如果这时采取全民公投的方式来决定这种方式是否正确，可能就被法西斯打败了。战时如此，一些特殊的日常状态也需要对信息暂时保密，譬如外交，基辛格为了建交访问中国，当时就未报道，避免了在美台湾人的抗议声浪。事实证明这一决策是符合美国利益的。再如由国家主导的高科技研究，NASA等等，不能将核心技术公开，随便谁都告诉，这是会损害世界安全的……

3.而且对于一个leader来说，大部分时候领导和人民之间并没有冲突，例如丘吉尔率领团结的英国人民打败了入侵.那些违背诚信原则的领导人则会受到应有的惩罚，例如尼克松。

4.但是这是一个重要的议题，必须case-by-case的分析。很有可能出现这种情况，在没有监督的情况下，这些获得权力的领导人会以权谋私等等。

5.我们要保证政府不偏航，要有良好的政治制度和媒体监督、公民社会等等。

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-8-3 19:56:31

Given our history, these are extremely hard tasks, ？
which disseminate false information targeting on making delusions to disturb the enemy's morale and it finally work out时态错误
it is not necessary a bad thing？.necessarily
第二段，我觉得你写的太简单了，首先你的分论点，就不太明确，最好能具体点，比如你说的goals具体化点比较好仅仅举例子，而且大篇幅的例子，而没有充分的分析。在Issue里面，例子要服从于论述，而不是成为主角，尽量压缩精简下。
看你的提纲，我觉得你的思路是比较混乱的，没有进行很好的加工和组织。

桌子上的梨 · 发表于 2012-8-5 19:51:41

69

Some people believe that it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

Government is the convergence of public power to improve citizens' life and security. As the government manager, the authority should serve for citizens but not rule or fool them, with no need to say undue freedom to withhold information from them. In fact, we rewrote our regulatory and legal system in the past decades essentially to banish autocratic judgment from government decisions. However, we have to admit that, in many cases, withhold information from the public for some time is the only practical alternative.

Given our history, there are extremely hard tasks such as fight in war, crime and so forth, and we are forced to pursue more important goals than plain honest in order to further the public’s ultimate interest. For example, in world war two, the White House carried out an information war which disseminated false information targeting on making delusions to disturb the enemy's morale and it finally worked out. In this case, discussing with all the people and asking for their opinions will ruin this plan. Indeed, for all the world's governments, attempts to free all the war-connected information flow are not only futile but counter productive as well. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naïve, neither can earn a respect nor can defeat the opponents. Sometimes it may even threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. Withhold something from the public, with the progress of modern society, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Furthermore, in some circumstances, people who strongly disagree with the hidden information take the position that interest of political leaders and people are opposite. In my view the two are not mutually exclusive. Churchill was thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, he gave courage to an entire nation and proved himself brilliantly to lead the British people. Yet, achievement of defeat German would have been impossible without his leading. On the other hand, anyone who disobey people's will and seek for their own interest got their own lessons in the end, for example, Nicolson was deposited after cheating on the American.

However, it could backfire if hidden-and- uncover strategy is mistakenly touted as a kind of "morning after" treatment that allows people to relax their guard and engage in risky political engagement. There is no denying that government official who is actually at the helm in the government should make the critical decisions and they should obey the will of people they serve. It turns out, however, that not every one who reached the pinnacle of leadership was a gleaming example of self-awareness, empathy, self-discipline and other qualities that mark an elevated EQ. Especially when considering most politicians seem driven today by their interest in being elected and reelected—that is , in short –term survival—rather than by any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency or country. Another problem is that government officials often pursue self- serving agendas other than public interest. Plus, so often it seems they are the last to know what the people want. There is a great chance that political leaders will cheat on its people. And these political ills are here to stay, because they spring from human nature. Thus, we should never ignore these risks.

When it comes to this topic, there's no single measure that's fully adequate but a combination of measures taken together can make our right to know relatively secure. If we really mean to lead, and to bring about a world more or less clear to us, we may enforce our political and legal systems and entrust more rights to public media.

[作文互改] issue 69

issue69 revised

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块