题目内容
More than any other industry, America"s multi-billion-dollar entertainment business is caught in the crossfire of the country"s culture war. Media firms have always had towalk a fine linebetween giving adults realistic shows and shielding children from sex and bad language. But thanks to the current political influence of social conservatives, TV and radio firms are under more attack than ever for allegedly corrupting America"s youth. Congress is threatening to increase sharply fines for airing indecent material. Over 80% of American homes subscribe either to cable or satellite TV, but only broadcast television, which is technically free, is subject to indecency regulation. The media industry fears that new rules could damage its business model. The Federal Communications Commission(FCC), the media industry"s regulator, defines indecency as language or material that describes sexual actions or organs and which is considered "offensive by contemporary community standards." Solely for the sake of children(present in one-third of American homes), indecency is forbidden from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on broadcast TV and radio. In contrast to "obscenity"—illegal all the time—indecency mostly consists of swearing, partial nudity and sexuality. America"s current battles over indecency began in 2003 when Bono, a rock star, said "this is really, really fucking brilliant" at a live awards show. The FCC decided to do nothing. Then came a glimpse of Janet Jackson"s breast in Super Bowl, outraging some viewers. Pressed by Congress, the FCC reversed its decision on Bono and said it would get tough on indecency. In 2004 it fined media firms nearly $8m, five times what it had levied in the previous ten years combined. For these firms such fines are puny. Yet fearing what future measures might be deployed against them, they have increasingly censored themselves. Last year several TV stations declined to air "Saving Private Ryan", a war movie with lots of swearing. The media industry faces a powerful bipartisan coalition of politicians who see votes in cleansing the airwaves. Republicans are leading the effort, but some Democrats are joining in—not surprisingly, as many parents do seem worried. One defensive strategy for the media industry is to play the moralizing wing of the Republican Party off against its substantial libertarian wing, which is opposed to giving the government more power to censor. News Corporation and General Electric"s NBC have together enlisted the support of the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the US Chamber of Commerce. Advances in technology, these groups argue, mean that the government no longer needs to police the airwaves for indecency. Many parents now have V-chips in their TV sets to block out pornographic material. Set-top boxes for cable and satellite TV also give parents control. The phrase "walk a fine line"(Line 3, Paragraph 1)most probably indicates
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
What is a woman worth That is the question that has to be faced by divorcing couples and by their lawyers. The answers seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser. Last week a judge ordered an insurance broker to give his former wife a settlement of ￡48m. She had earlier refused his offer of about ￡20m, which is why the matter went to court. No doubt Beverley Charman was an exemplary wife, and it is written in the Book of Proverbs that the price of a virtuous woman is above rubies, but even so, 348m seems a little steep. It would buy a couple of continents" worth of rubies. What women are really worth is beset with confusion and contradiction. There was a time when what women wanted was equal pay for equal work. One of the logical consequences was that no woman was entitled to take out of a marriage any more than she brought into it. That view was later softened by a recognition that childbearing and childcare present a serious opportunity cost to most women. So now people tend to agree that at divorce a woman should be compensated both for the real value that she brought to the marriage and for the opportunity cost to herself—her long slide down the career ladder, her loss of a personal pension, her reduced chances of finding another spouse. Then there is a surprisingly unliberated tendency among women, and among men, to make estimates that are unfairly biased in favor of women. The judge in the Charmans" hearing said that this was one of the very small category of cases where the wealth created is of extraordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy of the husband and therefore the husband could keep more than half the assets. That still left the wife with 48m(37% of the assets). But then the judge made some odd remarks about old-fashioned attitudes. Discussing John Charman"s determination "to protect what he regards as wealth generated entirely by his efforts", he said: "In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat outdated." Wrong. It is the judge who sounds old-fashioned. This country is awash with clever and hardworking men who make huge sums of money while their wivesdo little to contribute to domestic comfort and not much to advance their husband"s careers.That does not mean they are not entitled to proper compensation on divorce, but I think the assumption that they are entitled to half the fruits of the marriage, unless there is good reason why not, is absurd. The author holds that the divorce case of Beverley Charman has
How"s this for a coincidence Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. Although people hardly think of them in tandem, yet instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It"s not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact contemporaries. Rather, it"s because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world. They were both revolutionaries in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint greatness of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man It"s an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln"s favor. As great as his book on evolution is, it does no harm to remember that Darwin hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin"s theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as convincing as Darwin"s—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea. Lincoln, in contrast, is unique. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was ad-ministered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not negate his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was bom and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed. Alfred Russel Wallace is mentioned in order to show
下述属于胰腺外分泌功能的试验是( )(2006年)
What is a woman worth That is the question that has to be faced by divorcing couples and by their lawyers. The answers seem to be getting curiouser and curiouser. Last week a judge ordered an insurance broker to give his former wife a settlement of ￡48m. She had earlier refused his offer of about ￡20m, which is why the matter went to court. No doubt Beverley Charman was an exemplary wife, and it is written in the Book of Proverbs that the price of a virtuous woman is above rubies, but even so, 348m seems a little steep. It would buy a couple of continents" worth of rubies. What women are really worth is beset with confusion and contradiction. There was a time when what women wanted was equal pay for equal work. One of the logical consequences was that no woman was entitled to take out of a marriage any more than she brought into it. That view was later softened by a recognition that childbearing and childcare present a serious opportunity cost to most women. So now people tend to agree that at divorce a woman should be compensated both for the real value that she brought to the marriage and for the opportunity cost to herself—her long slide down the career ladder, her loss of a personal pension, her reduced chances of finding another spouse. Then there is a surprisingly unliberated tendency among women, and among men, to make estimates that are unfairly biased in favor of women. The judge in the Charmans" hearing said that this was one of the very small category of cases where the wealth created is of extraordinary proportions from extraordinary talent and energy of the husband and therefore the husband could keep more than half the assets. That still left the wife with 48m(37% of the assets). But then the judge made some odd remarks about old-fashioned attitudes. Discussing John Charman"s determination "to protect what he regards as wealth generated entirely by his efforts", he said: "In the narrow, old-fashioned sense, that perspective is understandable, if somewhat outdated." Wrong. It is the judge who sounds old-fashioned. This country is awash with clever and hardworking men who make huge sums of money while their wivesdo little to contribute to domestic comfort and not much to advance their husband"s careers.That does not mean they are not entitled to proper compensation on divorce, but I think the assumption that they are entitled to half the fruits of the marriage, unless there is good reason why not, is absurd. Which of the following statement can best represent the judge"s opinion in Charman"s case
微信支付 
支付宝支付