一、根据中文材料，写倒金字塔结构中文导语。10分
内容大致是 中国人民银行21日宣布，自11月22日起，下调金融机构人民币贷款和存款基准利率。央行决定，金融机构一年期贷款基准利率下调0.4个百分点至5.6%，一年期存款基准利率下调0.25个百分点至2.75%。
二、根据中文材料，写倒金字塔结构英文导语。10分
内容大致是 李克强总理前往水利部考察农村饮水安全问题，说重大水利工程建设“利”在当代，“功”在千秋。他强调，今年政府工作报告提出再解决6000万人饮水安全问题，这是对全国人民的硬承诺，必须保质保量按时完成，决不打折扣。
三、根据中文材料，写英文短消息。30分
内容大致是 习近平主持召开了中央全面深化改革领导小组第四次会议，会议审议通过了《关于推动传统媒体和新兴媒体融合发展的指导意见》等。习近平强调，推动传统媒体和新兴媒体融合发展，要遵循新闻传播规律和新兴媒体发展规律，强化互联网思维，坚持传统媒体和新兴媒体优势互补、一体发展，坚持先进技术为支撑、内容建设为根本，推动传统媒体和新兴媒体在内容、渠道、平台、经营、管理等方面的深度融合，着力打造一批形态多样、手段先进、具有竞争力的新型主流媒体，建成几家拥有强大实力和传播力、公信力、影响力的新型媒体集团，形成立体多样、融合发展的现代传播体系。要一手抓融合，一手抓管理，确保融合发展沿着正确方向推进。
四、根据英文材料，写中文短消息。30分
China communicating with India on cross-border river issue
A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Monday that China is maintaining sound communication with India on exploiting the Yarlung Zangbo River.
Hua Chunying made the remarks when asked to respond to the claim that a new hydropower station and other planned stations on the river could have an environmental impact downstream in India and Bangladesh.
Tibet's largest hydropower station became partly operational on Sunday.
The Chinese side always takes a responsible attitude towards the exploitation of cross-border rivers, said Hua at a routine press briefing.
China is committed to carrying out development and protection at the same time and has given full consideration to the impact on the river's lower reaches, she said.
Media reports have said China plans to build three hydropower stations on the middle reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River. The reports quoted China's 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015).
Hua said construction of the planned hydropower stations will not affect flood control or the ecology on the lower reaches.
China and India have maintained sound communication and cooperation on transborder river issues, she said, adding that China has done a lot in providing hydrological data for India in accordance with humanitarian spirit and in handling emergencies, said Hua.
The practices have proved that the flood control cooperation and emergency management between China and India are effective, she said.
In a joint statement released during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India in September, the Indian side also thanked China for its assistance in offering hydrological data and in dealing with emergencies, said the spokeswoman.
China and India have kept sound communication through expert meetings since the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on transborder rivers in 2013, she said.
Under the MOU, China and India agreed to work together on provision of flood-season hydrological data and emergency management and exchange views on other issues of mutual interest.
With an average altitude of 4,500 meters, the Yarlung Zangbo River is the highest river in the world. It originates in the glacial regions of the northern Himalayas, runs 2,057 km through southwest China's Tibet Autonomous Region, passes into India and finally meets the Indian Ocean in the Bay of Bengal.
（这段是原文，经搜索来自ChinaDaily）
五、根据英文材料，用英文写深度报道的提纲，要求包括报道目标、内容安排，至少三个采访对象、其中一个列出至少三个采访问题的提纲。30分
Chinese industries influenced by Sino-Australia FTA
While China finalized negotiations with Australia on a landmark free trade agreement, after nearly a decade of talks, it is still in the process of striking similar deals with other countries.
The Sino-Australian FTA could show how similar agreements would bring long-lasting effects to participating countries. Let's take a look at which industries in China would be affected.
Dairy industry
According to the FTA, China will levy zero tariffs on dairy products from Australia in four years' time while the current rate is 10 to 15 percent.
Wang Dingmian, a dairy expert, told 21st Century Business Herald that the zero-tariff treatment will have "some" influence on China's domestic dairy industry, but it will not be "very large" because the volume China imports from Australia is small and the price of Australian dairy products does not have an advantage over those of New Zealand, which is the largest source of China's dairy imports.
According to statistics of the General Administration of Customs of China, the country imported 30,267.82 tons of milk power from Australia, accounting for just 3.72 percent of all imports.
However, discussion has already begun on whether zero-tariff treatment will usher in price cuts for imported dairy products or whether the move will disadvantage China's high-end dairy products makers. There are also voices that say the move will encourage Chinese companies to invest in the Australian dairy industry.
China's New Hope Group announced on Nov 18 that the company will invest A$500 million in Australia's agriculture and food industry, including the dairy industry.
Wine industry
China will lower its tariff on imported wine from Australia year by year and finally levy none in 2019, according to the FTA between China and Australia.
The country imported $182 million worth of wine from Australia in the first nine months of this year under the current tariff rate of 14 to 30 percent, making Australia China's second largest partner country, according to statistics of the General Administration of Customs of China.
For China's importers, the Sino-Australian FTA has brought "confidence", according to Guo Haibing, general manager of Shandong Smart International Consulting Company, which sells Australian wine.
This may later result in a change in market share of Australian wine in China, Guo added.
Tourism
According to the FTA, Australia will ease the visa application process for Chinese citizens. This will encourage more Chinese to choose Australia as their overseas travel destination and create more business opportunities for Chinese agencies organizing tours to Australia.
According to the Chinese luxury Consumer Survey released by Hurun in January, Australia was the most preferred overseas travel destination for wealthy Chinese last year.
（原文，ChinaDaily的节选）
六、根据英文材料，写中文评论。40分
Why ISIS coverage sounds familiar
In the months since ISIS beheaded two American journalists and released the video tapes for all the world to see, there have been reports of shadowy new terrorist cells in Syria, lone wolf attacks in the West, and the progress of the US-led airstrikes.
These reports belong to a larger narrative that is changing week to week, sometimes day to day, yet its pattern and tone are familiar. Driven by a national outcry over the gruesome beheadings, the news media has focused on threats at home and abroad, while invoking the comforting myth of America’s military prowess. Like the media coverage that led up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of it is based on official, often anonymous sources, and a startling lack of evidence.
“We read the same things, we heard the same things about Al Qaeda,” said Yahya Kamalipour, who chairs the journalism department at North Carolina A&T State University, and the author of US Media and the Middle East: Image and Perception. “[ISIS] is an outcome of that really fundamentalist group, that’s my point. The situation is not getting any better; it’s like a feedback loop.”
Like the media coverage that led up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of it is based on official, often anonymous sources, and a startling lack of evidence.
Twelve years ago, the media coverage that led up to the war in Iraq marched in step with an administration that was eager to go to war. Today, “Threats and Responses,” the 2002 article in which Michael Gordon and Judith Miller claimed that the purchase of aluminum tubes was evidence that Saddam Hussein had a cache of nuclear weapons, has become a touchstone example of the failure of the press. The wrong piece at the right time, it helped the administration justify war in a moment when the American public was reeling from 9/11.
This summer, the videotaped beheadings of the American journalists inflicted their own kind of trauma, especially on the journalism community. The image of James Foley, kneeling in the desert, a knife against his neck, cannot be unseen. William Youmans, who teaches media and public affairs at George Washington University, worries that the outrage it sparked has given way to the same sort of solipsistic nationalism that transfixed the media in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He wonders what, if anything, has changed.
“There was a great deal of soul searching after the widely repeated, uncritical coverage leading up to the Iraq war,” Youmans said. “But I don’t know if that soul searching resulted in any fundamental changes in the relationship between the media and the political elite.”
The recent coverage suggests that this relationship is as close as ever. In the same week that Obama announced an open-ended bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the AP reported that a new terrorist cell had emerged that posed an even “more direct and imminent threat to the United States” than ISIS, in the form of the Khorasan group. With Obama administration officials publicly touting the group, the story flared through broadcasts and headlines on CBS and The New York Times, which quoted the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., as saying that “in terms of threat to the homeland, Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State”—despite there being almost no public information about Khorasan, or any concrete evidence as to who might belong to it. Two days later the first bombs fell in Syria.
Then in October the media glommed onto reports from law enforcement and terrorism officials that a series of violent episodes—including a slashing in Queens, a shooting in Ottawa, and a murder plot in Australia—may be evidence of ISIS’s capacity to catalyze terror attacks in the West. With congressional leaders calling for the military and police to be on guard, The Wall Street Journal described the attackers as “growing in number” and “hard to defend against.” CNN compared them to the shoe-bomber and other “lone wolves,” all of them Muslim, who had been self-radicalized in the West. Fox News called the American people “sitting ducks.” As was the case with the Khorasan group, the lone wolf threat was not based on evidence. Instead, it was based on messages that had appeared on Islamic State web forums urging “lone wolves in America” to plant explosives and target police.
Now that 1,500 additional US troops have been deployed to Iraq, a stunning development for an administration that had promised to drawdown the US presence there, it’s the coverage of the airstrikes themselves that is dominating the news. And with Khorasan largely debunked—by publications as diverse as Foreign Policy, the National Review, and The Intercept—and the threat of the lone wolf wiped from the headlines (Gawker had called it a “fairy tale”), a number of experts are wondering who exactly is driving the story.
According to Steve Livingston, a media scholar at George Washington University, media coverage since the Vietnam war has tended to privilege official sources, especially from the White House. “News coverage of war and foreign policy is indexed to the limited range of elite opinions,” he says, “at least in the short run.”
Lee Artz, who teaches communications at Purdue University, and the author of Public Media and Public Interest and Cultural Hegemony in the United States, said he sees these findings reflected in the constantly shifting narrative about the Islamic State. “The mainstream media in the US tends to accept uncritically whatever the US administration releases,” he says. “ISIS has been around for years, but according to the US it didn’t pose any threat to Western civilization until this summer. And then when the bombing campaign begins against ISIS, suddenly this group Khorasan appears as a more immediate threat, a more dangerous threat, although there wasn’t any background to it.” Artz says the threats that drew us into the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and Iraq in 2003, were similar. “In each case, intervention began with some threat that turned out to be convenient and useful to the US policy of intervention.”
A fog of information contributes to the problem. ISIS’s campaign of violence has made it all but impossible for American journalists to report on the ground in Iraq and Syria. And even though there are plenty of voices that are critical of the recent ISIS narrative, those voices aren’t reaching the majority of Americans, who get their news through national cable TV, and whose awareness of news sources is split along partisan lines. Youmans believes there’s still a shortage of sound international reporters and people who know the region very well, and that increased collaboration between Arab and American journalists could help enrich the national conversation.
A documentary released by Vice, in which reporter Medyan Dairieh embedded with the Islamic State for three weeks, is one recent example. The documentary sparked controversy for giving a voice to the jihadists, for its graphic, gruesome footage, and for possibly being illegal. But the reporter’s methods also captured the nuances of how the IS operates within the context of the region, in relation to other states, and its success in rooting out corruption in local markets—nuances that rarely surface in mainstream news outlets because they remain unknown, or do not fit the narrative. Youmans does not defend what the IS stands for, but says he is disturbed by the lack of nuance in much of the current reporting. “When the media starts erasing the bad things that good people do, and the good things that bad people do, that’s how we know it’s an information war.”
For now, without the benefit of hindsight, the recent coverage of ISIS and the airstrikes may only be notable for revealing just how little is actually known. Last week’s reports that the airstrikes were working have given way to doubt. Targets and alliances are shifting. Reports that US planes were passing through Syrian airspace and conspicuously not being shot at left many wondering whose side the US is on. This week, both The Washington Post and The New York Times ran pieces on the obstacles that are preventing the airstrikes from being more effective: Citing official and anonymous sources, the Post piece was framed around whether or not a key IS leader had been killed; the Times described the bad weather, a lack of intelligence, and an inability to locate targets, positing that ISIS had gone underground. The Times piece appeared alongside another one by Ben Hubbard, who wrote that “the news media in general had perhaps given the impression that [ISIS] was stronger and more powerful than it actually is.” Given the story he wrote last week, it almost seemed like an apology.
The reversals struck Artz as curious. “They send out bombing raids but they can’t find anybody to bomb. And again, this is the front page of The New York Times. So where’s the existential threat?” Meanwhile, a toolkit for journalists covering the airstrikes appeared on journalistresource.org. Complete with lessons from previous conflicts, including new data-driven research on how the bombings of civilian areas during the Vietnam war “systematically shifted control in favor of the Viet Cong insurgents,” the toolkit’s mission was clear: Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.
应该是这篇，但中间可能有删减，我是没读完实在不记得了。from Columbia Journalism Review
