论文部分内容阅读
迥然不同的“新闻鉴赏力”《新闻记者》月刊1986年第10期刊登的《<三次冲击>引来的冲击波》一文,先是对新华社评述新闻《广州经受三次冲击更有生气》的“立论”和“写作方法”抨击一番,接着对这篇评述新闻的“发表途径”非议一通,最后全文收束到对“上边”的所谓“‘左’的思想和传统工作方法的批评”。作者陈力丹同志是借新华社这篇评述新闻和人民日报评论员文章《在波浪冲击中前行》发表后,报社内部评报栏的“一份份批评性的评报意见书”来做文章的。借别人的文章来做文章,不可能把别人的文章全部引述和转述,这是可以理解的。陈力丹忠实于“意见书”的主旨,但引述和转述“意见书”时是经过精心删节处理了的。这就理所当然地有必要在评论陈文时,再看看他所赞赏的那些“意见书”的原文,并着重就他用来做文章的“意见书”发表一点意见。
A totally different piece of “The Shockwave”, which was published in Issue 10 of Journalists’ Monthly Issue 10, 1986, begins with a commentary on Xinhua News Agency’s comment on “Guangzhou is even more viable after three shocks” “And” writing methods “, and then dismissed the” publication route “of the review news as the last sentence to include criticism of the so-called” leftist “thinking and traditional working methods of the” above. “ The author Comrade Chen Lidan made an essay on ”a copy of a critical comment letter of assessment“ published in the newspaper’s internal newspaper column after the commentary by Xinhua News Agency and the commentator article of the People’s Daily, ”Moving Forward in the Wave.“ . It is understandable to borrow an article from another person and make it impossible to quote and rewrite others’ articles. Chen Li-Dan loyal to the ”submissions“ the main thrust, but quoting and submissions ”submissions“ was carefully abridged. It goes without saying that it is of course necessary to review the original text of the ”submissions“ he admires when commenting on Chen Wen and make a point of expressing his opinion on the ”submissions" that he uses to make the passage.