您现在的位置: 首页 > 网站导航收录 > 百科知识百科知识
史翠珊效应(芭芭拉史翠珊)
这一,效应,之人史翠珊效应(芭芭拉史翠珊)
发布时间:2016-12-08加入收藏来源:互联网点击:
就在史翠珊搬起石头砸自己的脚的同年,Fox 新闻也受到了史翠珊效应的影响。2003年,这一有线电视新闻公司起诉 当时只是一名喜剧演员和演员,尚未成为参议院的 Al Franken,起诉原因是认为 Al Franken的反保守主义著作《谎言与撒谎的撒谎者:对右派的公平平衡解读》侵犯了其版权。Fox新闻诉称,“公平平衡”是其知识版权,但一位法官并不认可。Fox 新闻不仅输掉了这场官司,这一免费推广还将 Franken的书推到了最畅销书单榜首。
One of the funniest/saddest examples of the Streisand effect took place in Scotland in 2012, when a 9-year-old schoolgirl Martha Payne began taking pictures of her school cafeteria lunches and writing about them on her personal blog. When the chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver tweeted about Payne’s blog, the site received 3 million hits in just two months. The local town council, fearing that the grade-schooler was making them look stupid, did something even stupider and banned her from taking photos at school. Of course, Payne blogged about the ban, too, which made international news. The town council publicly apologized and removed the ban.
史翠珊效应的其中一个最搞笑,也是最悲伤的例子发生在2012年的苏格兰。当时,一位9岁的女生 Martha Payne 开始拍摄学校餐厅午饭,并在个人博客上写文章记录。当厨师和电视名人 Jamie Oliver 发推特讲述了 Payne的博客,其博客在两个月内就受到了300万次点击。当地担心这一小学生会让他们看起来很愚蠢,就做了一件更愚蠢的事:禁止她在学校拍摄照片。当然,Payne也在博客上提到了这一禁令,这一禁令也成为了国际新闻。最终当地公开致歉,撤销了该禁令。
"Outrage Management"
“公愤管理”
As amusing as these examples are, Jansen laments that most censorship efforts are successful. They work precisely because we never hear about them.
尽管这些例子很有趣,但Jansen 却哀叹表示,大部分审查行为都是成功的。之所以它们成功,恰恰是因为我们从未听说过它们。
"That's the way power works," says Jansen. "For example, the non-disclosure agreements that employees have to sign to work at many corporations. You can know something really bad is going on, but you can't tell anyone. Not only will you be fired, but you'll be sued."
“这就是权力运作的方式,”Jansen说道,“例如,员工在很多公司入职时必须签署的保密协议。你可以知道一些很不好的事情,但你不能告诉任何人,否则你不仅会被开除,而且还会被起诉。”
Even if a powerful person or entity is caught trying to silence a critic or hide a dirty secret, there's a whole crisis management playbook to diffuse public outcry. Jansen and Martin call it "outrage management."
即使当一位有权力之人或组织被发现试图噤声批评者或掩盖一个肮脏的秘密,也会有一套完整的危机管理策略,来消除公众呼声。Jansen 和 Martin将其称为“公愤管理”。
In their paper, they list five techniques that censors use to discredit and silence critics:
在其论文中,他们列出了审查者们用于攻击和噤声批评者的五种策略:
Covering up the actionDevaluing the target Reinterpreting events by lying, minimizing consequences, blaming others and using favorable framingUsing official channels to give an appearance of justice Intimidating or rewarding people involved 掩盖行动 贬低所要攻击的目标 以撒谎、尽可能轻描淡写后果、指责他人、以有利视角解读的方式重新解读事件;使用官方渠道,传递公平假象。恐吓或奖励所涉及之人。Jansen and Martin also gave an example about the Nazis. In their Euthanasia program which was meant to kill people with disabilities, they used all five methods of that.
They hid the program from the public, that’s number 1.
They stigmatize people with disabilities as a burden for the society. That’s devaluing the target.
They lied about the events, so that’s reinterpreting it. To anyone who had a question, like the parent of the victims, they would just say, oh, they died of this other disease or from natural causes or something.
They also intimidated parents who would not back down, saying: hey, do you wanna lose the rest of your kids? No? then be quiet.
They also allowed for formal complaints to be levied, but of course they never went anywhere, so they gave an appearance of using official channels for justice.
Jason 和 Martin 还给提到了纳粹的“安乐”计划。该项目旨在杀掉残障人士。纳粹分子在这一计划中使用了上述全部五种策略。
他们向大众掩盖了这一计划。这是第一条。
他们他们羞辱残障人士,将他们定义为社会负担,这是贬低所攻击目标的价值;
他们对这一事件撒谎,这属于对事件重新解读。对于有质疑之人,比如受害者父母,他们会说,他们于其他某种疾病,或自然原因,或其他原因等。
对于不肯退让的父母,他们会采取恐吓策略:你是不是还想失去其他孩子?不想?那就闭嘴!
他们还允许人们提出投诉,但这些投诉根本就不会被处理。这属于通过官方渠道做出正义公平假象。
"There are PR people who are very good at doing this kind of thing," says Jansen. "They set up listening sessions with people who are objecting to something, then single out one or two people and put them on a 'committee.' Sometimes they even overtly bribe people with some kind of honorific and then proceed with whatever they intended to do in the first place."
“有很多公关专业人员非常擅于做这类事情,”Jansen说道,“他们与某件事的反对者们开展倾听谈话,之后选择其中一到两位,让他们参与到一个‘委员会’中”。有时,他们甚至公然用某种荣誉来贿赂别人,然后继续开展自己原来的计划。
The Streisand Effect Depends on Free Speech and Press
史翠珊效应取决于自由言论与媒体
The Streisand effect can be an effective check on censorship and the misuse of power to bully critics into silence, but only if the act of censorship is dragged into the light by a free and unfettered press. None of the examples we cited above, including Streisand's, would have happened if not for journalists picking up the stories and bringing them to the public's attention.
对于审查和通过滥用权力来噤声批评者这些行为而言,史翠珊效应可以产生有效的抑制作用,但前提是,这种审查行为需要被自由媒体曝光。如果没有记者报道这些故事,将这些故事带入大众视野,那么上面的所有例子,也包括史翠珊本身的例子,都可能并不会发生。
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the media as a check on censorship has taken a hit during the "fake news" era. If politicians and other people in power can dismiss news stories that make them look bad as biased or false, then the power of the Streisand effect dries up.
不幸的是,媒体作为信息审查行为的有效抑制工具,在这个“虚假新闻”时代,其有效遭受重创。如果政治家和其他有权力之人将对自己不利的新闻故事直接定为有偏见或虚假新闻,那么“史翠珊效应”的力量就会枯竭。
原文链接:
https://people.howstuffworks.com/streisand-effect.htm
或收听与本文相关播客(Apple Podcast):Short Stuff: Streisand Effect by Stuff You should Know
https://podcasts.apple.com/cn/podcast/stuff-you-should-know/id278981407?l=en#episodeGuid=ab97a908-3620-11ea-924d-a7148763217c
上一篇:存货周转率(存货周转率怎么分析)
下一篇:返回列表
相关链接 |
||
网友回复(共有 0 条回复) |