男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
您現(xiàn)在的位置: Language Tips> Columnist> Zhang Xin  
 





 
Read between the lines
[ 2007-09-07 14:37 ]

Scanning Salon.com, I came across a good example for explaining the idiom "read between the lines", which has been a topic I want to address for some time.

First, definition. To read between the lines is to guess someone's real feelings and meanings from something they actually write.

Political observers understand this perfectly. If, say, a politician is reported to have resigned because of "personal" reasons, you can often be sure that the said politician has just been removed from power, and perhaps brutally. He's the loser of the latest round of power struggle. In other words, the reasons are anything but "personal". Similarly, if someone has done the same for "health" problems, you can be certain they are NOT ill. He has no physical ailment but may develop one later – "health" problems may catch up with him soon if he can't successfully deal with the depression he suffers from being sacked.

Likewise, when a government spokesman says that the leadership is one of "unity and harmony", you can infer pretty safely that the leaders can't stand each other.

In diplomatic writing, we often see meetings between heads of governments described as "frank", "cordial" and so forth. Cordial means that the leaders are exchanging pleasantries only – telling each other what they want to hear. If the discussion is described as "frank", on the other hand, that means the leaders hate each other and are making sure the other person knows it. The Economist magazine, for example, routinely describes "frank discussion" as "a diplomat's word for a fallout," or fierce quarrels short of "trading blows" and "dispatching gunboats", also Economist terminologies. Next, the very "diplomat" may be expelled for involving in "activities deemed incompatible with his status", which is euphemism, usually for spying.

That's exaggerating it, I know. But, with media increasingly owned and controlled by fewer people and fewer interest groups, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? You'd better stay aware and alert of these things so as not to be taken for a ride. The public needs a healthy cynicism regarding TV, newspapers as well as anything from cyberspace. After all, propaganda does two things, usually simultaneously – it propagates some facts and ideas while it goes out of its way to hide others.

Anyways, the latest example I have concerns a Financial Times report about China. It is alarmingly titled "Chinese military hacked into Pentagon".

"Sounds like the 'China threat' is very much alive!", writes Andrew Leonard in his How The World Works column. Leonard read in between the lines of the FT report on Tuesday and saw the other side of the story, as is evidenced by the way he titles his article – "U.S. military routinely hacks into Chinese networks".

That's exactly what he read in between the lines of the FT report. Leonard says:

 How the World Works doesn't doubt that the dance between the world's preeminent superpower, the U.S., and the No. 1 contender for the throne, China, could someday turn into an ugly showdown. But the Financial Times' choice for a headline, "Chinese military hacked into Pentagon," could be accused of rhetorical alarmism, and not just because most of the information accessed during the attack appears to have been unclassified.

Later in the same article:

The PLA regularly probes U.S. military networks – and the Pentagon is widely assumed to scan Chinese networks – but U.S. officials said the penetration in June raised concerns to a new level because of fears that China had shown it could disrupt systems at critical times.

Scan? Scan? What does that mean?Is it the same as "probe"? Or could one even say, "The Pentagon is widely assumed to regularly hack into Chinese networks"?

And:

        An editorial in the Financial Times running along with its "scoop" even observes:

Yet it is probably also right to assume that the U.S. and other western governments are busy infiltrating the computer systems of foreign governments. It is therefore disingenuous to complain too vigorously when those same foreign governments become good at doing it back.

Infiltrating? Isn’t that the same as "hacking"? Or, to be semiotically precise, "cracking"?

Yes, it's a fine world for the West to "infiltrate" Chinese systems because they're just "scanning". The world becomes dangerous (to the present international powers that be, that is) if countries like China begin to be "doing it back". Then the "scanning" becomes "hacking".

The real danger is a world to be run by a single voice. And the biggest danger is if you can't read between the lines.

 

About the author:
 

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

 
 
相關(guān)文章 Related Stories
 
         
 
 
 
 
 
         

 

 

 
 

48小時內(nèi)最熱門

     
  “交通協(xié)管員”怎么說
  Loose cannon:無視規(guī)矩的人
  事實勝于雄辯
  癡情的祈禱:My prayer
  Click《人生遙控器》(精講之八)

本頻道最新推薦

     
  Read between the lines
  “中山門”在英語里究竟應(yīng)該怎么表達
  Learning the value of money
  Cold turkey: Can you dig it?
  是故意“不顧”還是“顧不上”?

論壇熱貼

     
  怎么翻譯“你冤枉我”?
  “不服” 怎么翻譯
  how to say “舉手之勞”
  參加BBC在線競賽 獲免費倫敦游機會!
  Penny for your thoughts?
  怎么翻譯‘公益廣告'






主站蜘蛛池模板: 专栏| 金坛市| 泗水县| 行唐县| 达日县| 西和县| 固始县| 安庆市| 黄冈市| 华阴市| 谢通门县| 康定县| 峨眉山市| 婺源县| 南投市| 谷城县| 洛川县| 北宁市| 周口市| 中江县| 遵义市| 金平| 肇东市| 信丰县| 周宁县| 绥中县| 武乡县| 德阳市| 霸州市| 应城市| 鹤庆县| 石嘴山市| 永和县| 武城县| 新晃| 法库县| 五常市| 台东市| 青河县| 阜新市| 广灵县| 类乌齐县| 玛纳斯县| 六盘水市| 北安市| 西林县| 冀州市| 射洪县| 芮城县| 炉霍县| 柳江县| 沁源县| 鹤岗市| 北京市| 锦屏县| 宣威市| 株洲县| 巴林右旗| 五华县| 永康市| 洛浦县| 台前县| 牙克石市| 太康县| 乡城县| 泰州市| 鄄城县| 浏阳市| 洮南市| 九龙城区| 梁河县| 烟台市| 福建省| 盐津县| 平乡县| 兴仁县| 广昌县| 尚义县| 文登市| 嘉禾县| 聂拉木县| 离岛区|