[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.

點(diǎn)評(píng)：

文章結(jié)構(gòu)：

文章結(jié)構(gòu)比較普通，段落的劃分沒(méi)有一個(gè)明確的界限，似乎前后兩段在內(nèi)容上也是承接的關(guān)系，但是作者就是硬要把它們分開，導(dǎo)致整篇文章分段較多，這樣每個(gè)段落在內(nèi)容上就顯得很瑣碎，段與段之間沒(méi)有一個(gè)感情的升華，這樣就給人一種評(píng)述，感情色彩不濃的感覺。

文章內(nèi)容：

這篇文章沒(méi)有過(guò)多地在自己的學(xué)術(shù)背景上大費(fèi)周章，而是向讀者們傳達(dá)了一條非常重要的信息。當(dāng)人們都理所當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為大眾媒體為言論的自由開辟了一條新路，當(dāng)人們都不假思索地依賴大眾媒體來(lái)獲得外部信息的時(shí)候，作者提出了對(duì)從大眾媒體所獲得的信息要有批判精神，并指出了媒體報(bào)道帶有一定的失真性和功利性，因此人們必須在接收信息之前先對(duì)信息進(jìn)行判斷，形成自主思維以免受到過(guò)多的外部輿論所影響。

文章并沒(méi)有過(guò)多華麗的詞藻，也沒(méi)有像平常的一些文章那樣先擺出自己的優(yōu)勢(shì)然后舉例說(shuō)明最后做出總結(jié)，然而這篇文章卻能別出心裁，讓讀者留下一個(gè)深刻的印象。作者能跳出常規(guī)性思維，說(shuō)別人所不能想，已經(jīng)成功地做到了跳出留學(xué)申請(qǐng)本身來(lái)寫文書。相信讀者們看完這篇文章都有種恍然大悟和豁然開朗的感覺。

總體點(diǎn)評(píng)：

總的來(lái)說(shuō)，這是一篇不錯(cuò)的文書。這篇文書的出色之處在于作者所提出的觀點(diǎn)，其實(shí)一篇好的文書不在于其所運(yùn)用的修辭手法、表達(dá)方式或者是結(jié)構(gòu)布局之類的，最重要的是文章所展現(xiàn)出來(lái)的作者的思想，學(xué)校希望看到的申請(qǐng)人應(yīng)該是一個(gè)有想法，有主見的學(xué)生，而不是一個(gè)只會(huì)玩文字游戲的作家。所以在你下筆之前，不妨好好的想一下你究竟是一個(gè)怎樣的人，和別人有什么不一樣以及你寫這篇文書的動(dòng)機(jī)等等。

可借鑒要素：

此篇文章的選材比較新穎，另外形象的塑造也比較的鮮明，可以給人留下一個(gè)較深的印象。其實(shí)要判斷你寫的文書能不能給人留下較深的印象，你可以找人看一下你的文書，看完之后叫他們描述一下文書的主人公是一個(gè)怎樣的人，如果他們說(shuō)不出來(lái)，那就證明你的文書還是畢竟普通，不能給人留下深印象。

譯文：

商業(yè)廣告

提示：如果給你5分鐘在全國(guó)電視節(jié)目上做開幕詞，你會(huì)說(shuō)什么？為什么？

“這是由……為你呈送的信息。”每天數(shù)百萬(wàn)的美國(guó)人都會(huì)在電視里聽到這句廣告詞，但是卻甚少人會(huì)去考慮這些廣告詞的衍生含義。如果給我五分鐘的廣告時(shí)間，我會(huì)催促美國(guó)人去重新思考這些商業(yè)廣告的隱含意義。當(dāng)然，我會(huì)鼓勵(lì)每個(gè)人去研究和審度問(wèn)題的本身而不是僅僅依賴電視和其他大眾媒體來(lái)獲得信息。

許多美國(guó)人都錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為第一修正案的出現(xiàn)能保證言論的絕對(duì)自由。他們認(rèn)為新聞媒體是為人民服務(wù)的。然而，在當(dāng)今這個(gè)物質(zhì)化的時(shí)代，金錢成為了控制信息流通的一種新的手段。廣告客戶，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)供應(yīng)商以及股東們都限制了言論的自由。一條商業(yè)廣告內(nèi)含了股東們的既定利益，這些股東就是媒體們的贊助商。舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，一個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或報(bào)紙的供應(yīng)商有股份或與某一行業(yè)有密切聯(lián)系，那么他就會(huì)有意掩蓋對(duì)這一行業(yè)不利的信息。

凡事都有兩面，環(huán)境、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、政治、商業(yè)、教育和宗教之類的問(wèn)題也一樣。經(jīng)常地新聞?dòng)浾邆兯鶊?bào)道的消息多含有他們的一些主觀意識(shí)。雖然這些帶有主觀意識(shí)的言論并不能支配每一篇文章或報(bào)道，但是多少的偏見還是會(huì)存在的。

由于意識(shí)到要獲得毫無(wú)偏見的信息是如此地困難，我更加要鼓勵(lì)那些觀看政壇節(jié)目的美國(guó)人在形成既定觀念之前一定要對(duì)事情做出研究判斷，以免受到那些自稱專家的人的言論所影響。

這些用來(lái)構(gòu)筑引人注目的政治性廣告的資源和市場(chǎng)調(diào)查的數(shù)量是如此的巨大。因此，越有錢就能做越多的廣告。而且人們?yōu)榱艘拇底约旱囊庖姴幌ㄟ^(guò)各種途徑來(lái)獲得那寶貴的廣告時(shí)間。然而一個(gè)受過(guò)高等教育的市民是不會(huì)那么輕易就被這些宣傳或廣告而左右思想的，相反會(huì)做出慎重的決定。我上面所說(shuō)的意在鼓勵(lì)美國(guó)人要理解媒體的靈活性并培養(yǎng)質(zhì)疑問(wèn)題，調(diào)查研究問(wèn)題的能力從而限制了這些宣傳的影響力。