文书点评：商学院命题ESSAY

[Prompt: If you were given five minutes of airtime on national television, what would you talk about? Why?]

“This message has been brought to you by...” Millions of Americans hear this commercial announcement emanating from their televisions each day, yet few consider the ramifications of the words. If granted five minutes of national airtime, I would urge the American public to explore the implications of the commercialization of the media. Indeed, I would encourage individuals to research and question issues rather than relying primarily on television and other mass media for information.

Many Americans erroneously believe that the presence of the First Amendment ensures complete freedom of the press. They consider the news media to arise from the people with the intent of serving the people. In modern times, however, money has emerged as a new way of controlling information. Advertisers, network owners and stockholders all function to restrict free speech. A commercial message involves stakeholders, with vested interests, providing essential financial backing to the media conglomerate. For example, a network or newspaper owner with a stake in or ties to a large industry may de-emphasize or omit information damaging to the industry.
Issues spanning the environment, war, politics, business, education, and religion all feature at least two sides of the story. Often, the journalists presenting information inflect their personal opinions into the story. Although these unbalanced opinions do not overtly dominate every article or news broadcast, a bias or a certain slant could inevitably surface.

Given the difficulty of obtaining a completely unaltered account, I would further encourage Americans who watch political opinion shows to research the issues before forming a firm opinion, thus preventing the “experts” from passing on their opinions like hand-me-downs. Americans should investigate the literature and facts relating to the issues they consider important. This advice becomes increasingly relevant during elections, when politicians undertake massive efforts to spin public ideals. Accordingly, television advertisements and political billboards must receive intense scrutiny. A preferable avenue of determining which candidate merits one’s vote involves researching his or her stance on issues of personal importance.

The amount of resources and market research utilized to construct attention-garnering political advertisements remains astounding. Hence, more money allows more advertisement. Moreover, people who use their vast resources to acquire time on television do so to advocate their side of an issue. An educated public, however, cannot be swayed by propaganda or attention-grabbing advertisements, but rather will make informed decisions. My message aspires to encourage Americans to limit the impact of propaganda by understanding the dynamics of the media and developing both the capacity to think critically and the desire to research one's opinions.

点评：

文章结构：

文章结构比较普通，段落的划分没有一个明确的界限，似乎前后两段在内容上也是承接的关系，但是作者就是硬要把它们分开，导致整篇文章分段较多，这样每个段落在内容上就显得很琐碎，段与段之间没有一个感情的升华，这样就给人一种评述，感情色彩不浓的感觉。

文章内容：

这篇文章没有过多地在自己的学术背景上大费周章，而是向读者们传达了一条非常重要的信息。当人们都理所当然地认为大众媒体为言论的自由开辟了一条新路，当人们都不假思索地依赖大众媒体来获得外部信息的时候，作者提出了对从大众媒体所获得的信息要有批判精神，并指出了媒体报道带有一定的失真性和功利性，因此人们必须在接收信息之前先对信息进行判断，形成自主思维以免受到过多的外部舆论所影响。

文章并没有过多华丽的词藻，也没有像平常的一些文章那样先摆出自己的优势然后举例说明最后做出总结，然而这篇文章却能别出心裁，让读者留下一个深刻的印象。作者能跳出常规性思维，说别人所不能想，已经成功地做到了跳出留学申请本身来写文书。相信读者们看完这篇文章都有种恍然大悟和豁然开朗的感觉。

总体点评：

总的来说，这是一篇不错的文书。这篇文书的出色之处在于作者所提出的观点，其实一篇好的文书不在于其所运用的修辞手法、表达方式或者是结构布局之类的，最重要的是文章所展现出来的作者的思想，学校希望看到的申请人应该是一个有想法，有主见的学生，而不是一个只会玩文字游戏的作家。所以在你下笔之前，不妨好好的想一下你究竟是一个怎样的人，和别人有什么不一样以及你写这篇文书的动机等等。

可借鉴要素：

此篇文章的选材比较新颖，另外形象的塑造也比较的鲜明，可以给人留下一个较深的印象。其实要判断你写的文书能不能给人留下较深的印象，你可以找人看一下你的文书，看完之后叫他们描述一下文书的主人公是一个怎样的人，如果他们说不出来，那就证明你的文书还是毕竟普通，不能给人留下深印象。

译文：

商业广告

提示：如果给你5分钟在全国电视节目上做开幕词，你会说什么？为什么？

“这是由……为你呈送的信息。”每天数百万的美国人都会在电视里听到这句广告词，但是却甚少人会去考虑这些广告词的衍生含义。如果给我五分钟的广告时间，我会催促美国人去重新思考这些商业广告的隐含意义。当然，我会鼓励每个人去研究和审度问题的本身而不是仅仅依赖电视和其他大众媒体来获得信息。

许多美国人都错误地认为第一修正案的出现能保证言论的绝对自由。他们认为新闻媒体是为人民服务的。然而，在当今这个物质化的时代，金钱成为了控制信息流通的一种新的手段。广告客户，互联网供应商以及股东们都限制了言论的自由。一条商业广告内含了股东们的既定利益，这些股东就是媒体们的赞助商。举个例子来说，一个互联网或报纸的供应商有股份或与某一行业有密切联系，那么他就会有意掩盖对这一行业不利的信息。

凡事都有两面，环境、战争、政治、商业、教育和宗教之类的问题也一样。经常地新闻记者们所报道的消息多含有他们的一些主观意识。虽然这些带有主观意识的言论并不能支配每一篇文章或报道，但是多少的偏见还是会存在的。

由于意识到要获得毫无偏见的信息是如此地困难，我更加要鼓励那些观看政坛节目的美国人在形成既定观念之前一定要对事情做出研究判断，以免受到那些自称专家的人的言论所影响。

这些用来构筑引人注目的政治性广告的资源和市场调查的数量是如此的巨大。因此，越有钱就能做越多的广告。而且人们为了要鼓吹自己的意见不惜通过各种途径来获得那宝贵的广告时间。然而一个受过高等教育的市民是不会那么轻易就被这些宣传或广告而左右思想的，相反会做出慎重的决定。我上面所说的意在鼓励美国人要理解媒体的灵活性并培养质疑问题，调查研究问题的能力从而限制了这些宣传的影响力。