Text 4
"What a difference a word makes." The issue of semantics has been an ongoing complaint against the media, which has been characterized by an increasing level of sensationalism and irresponsible reporting over the years, fostered by increasingly fierce competition and struggle for wider distributions and readerships.
A focal point for the criticism is the coverage of high-profile criminal cases.With such headlines as "Mr. X Arrest for First-Degree Murder" prominently displayed across the front page, it has been argued that such provocative language influences public opinion, causing premature assumptions of guilt before the matter can be properly and legally decided in a court of law. The power of the media to influence public opinion and, by extension, legal and political perceptions, has long been established and recognized, spurring outcries when inaccurate or overly embellished stories result in unwarranted destruction of public image or intrusions into privacy of unwilling individuals.
Reporters and editors take the utmost care in their choice of words for use in their articles, but with constant pressure to create provocative headlines in order to sell their papers, the distinction between respectable periodicals and trashy tabloids is becoming thinner every day. The predicament is exacerbated by the public’s seeming short attention span, putting the papers under pressure to make their stories as attention-grabbing as they are accurate. Further obfuscating the situation is the fact that the same phrase can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways depending on who reads it, making it hard for one to judge whether a line is excessive or not.
Whatever the causes and effects, however, the freedom of press laws in the United States mean that any change to the style employed by the media must be self-imposed. In that respect, it appears that nothing will be changing in the near future, since the public’s insatiable hunger for controversy and scandal continues to dominate and set the pace for marketable reporting. As the sensationalism and its related effects continue into the longer term, however’, there will no doubt be more outcry as the trend continues. This will possibly result in an upheaval of the system, favoring more accurate, unembellished reporting, consisting of hard facts with a minimum of supposition or commentary and devoid of minors and other questionable sources of information. If and when that occurs, we can truly state with pride that our media industry is not only a free one, but a responsible and reliable one.

A:outdo their competition in creating the most provocative stories B:foster interest in the main text of the article C:submit to the demands of the public, who want such sensational titles D:boost sales by stirring interest above that of the competition's

"What a difference a word makes." The issue of semantics has been an ongoing complain against the media, which has been characterized by an increasing level of sensationalism and irresponsible reporting over the years, fostered by increasingly fierce competition and struggle for wider distributions and readerships.
A focal point for the criticism is the coverage of high-profile criminal cases. With such headlines as "Mr. X Arrest for First-Degree Murder" prominently displayed across the front page, it has been argued that such provocative language influences public opinion, causing premature assumptions of guilt before the matter can be properly and legally decided in a court of law. The power of the media to influence public opinion and, by extension, legal and political perceptions, has long been established and recognized, spurring outcries when inaccurate or overly embellished stories result in unwarranted destruction of public image or intrusion into privacy of unwilling individuals.
Reporters and editors take the utmost care in their choice of words for use in their articles, but with constant pressure to create provocative headlines in order to sell their papers, the distinction between respectable periodicals and trashy tabloids is becoming thinner every day. The dilemma is exacerbated by the public’s seeming short attention span, putting the papers under pressure to make their stories as attention-grabbing as they are accurate. Further obfuscating the situation is the fact that the same phrase can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways depending on who reads it, making it hard for one to judge whether a line is excessive or not.
Whatever the causes and effects, however, the freedom of pres laws in the United States mean that any change to the style employed by the media must be self-imposed. In that respect, it appears that nothing will be changing in the near future, since the public’s insatiable hunger for controversy and scandal continues to dominate and set the pace for marketable reporting. As the sensationalism and its related effects continue into the longer term, however, there will no doubt be more outcry as the trend continues. This will possibly result in an upheaval of the system; favoring more accurate, unembellished reporting, consisting of hard facts with a minimum of supposition or commentary and devoid of rumors and other questionable sources of information. If and when that occurs, we can truly state with pride that our media industry is only a free one, bat a responsible and reliable one.
Attractive but misleading headlines are used by some media sources to

A:outdo their competition in creating the most provocative stories, B:foster interest in the main text of the article. C:submit to the demands of the public, who want such sensational titles. D:boost sales by stirring interest above that of the competition’s.

"What a difference a word makes." The issue of semantics has been an ongoing complain against the media, which has been characterized by an increasing level of sensationalism and irresponsible reporting over the years, fostered by increasingly fierce competition and struggle for wider distributions and readerships.
A focal point for the criticism is the coverage of high-profile criminal cases. With such headlines as "Mr. X Arrest for First-Degree Murder" prominently displayed across the front page, it has been argued that such provocative language influences public opinion, causing premature assumptions of guilt before the matter can be properly and legally decided in a court of law. The power of the media to influence public opinion and, by extension, legal and political perceptions, has long been established and recognized, spurring outcries when inaccurate or overly embellished stories result in unwarranted destruction of public image or intrusion into privacy of unwilling individuals.
Reporters and editors take the utmost care in their choice of words for use in their articles, but with constant pressure to create provocative headlines in order to sell their papers, the distinction between respectable periodicals and trashy tabloids is becoming thinner every day. The dilemma is exacerbated by the public’s seeming short attention span, putting the papers under pressure to make their stories as attention-grabbing as they are accurate. Further obfuscating the situation is the fact that the same phrase can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways depending on who reads it, making it hard for one to judge whether a line is excessive or not.
Whatever the causes and effects, however, the freedom of pres laws in the United States mean that any change to the style employed by the media must be self-imposed. In that respect, it appears that nothing will be changing in the near future, since the public’s insatiable hunger for controversy and scandal continues to dominate and set the pace for marketable reporting. As the sensationalism and its related effects continue into the longer term, however, there will no doubt be more outcry as the trend continues. This will possibly result in an upheaval of the system; favoring more accurate, unembellished reporting, consisting of hard facts with a minimum of supposition or commentary and devoid of rumors and other questionable sources of information. If and when that occurs, we can truly state with pride that our media industry is only a free one, bat a responsible and reliable one.

A:outdo their competition in creating the most provocative stories, B:foster interest in the main text of the article. C:submit to the demands of the public, who want such sensational titles. D:boost sales by stirring interest above that of the competition’s.

By now, the 2012 Republican presidential contenders have all been tattooed by the opposition, branded as boring, damaged, or even insane. The entire GOP (共和党的别称) is "mad, " as The New Republic recently put it, and the party’s White House hopefuls display what The New Yorker calls "crackles of craziness. " This kind of talk flows both ways, of course. But what if the big problem with Washington—isn’t nuttiness so much as a lack of it
That’s one takeaway from A First-Rate Madness, a new book of psychiatric case studies by Nassir Ghaemi, director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts Medical Center. He argues that what sets apart the world’s great leaders isn’t some splendidly healthy mind but an exceptionally broken one, coupled with the good luck to lead when extremity is needed. "Our greatest crisis leaders toil in sadness when society is happy, " writes Ghaemi. "Yet when calamity occurs, if they are in a position to act, they can lift up the rest of us. "
If so, then what we need for these calamitous times is a calamitous mind, a madman in chief, someone whose abnormal brain can solve our abnormal problems. Perhaps the nicotione-free, no-drama Obama won’t do after all. The good doctor isn’t saying that all mental illness is a blessing. Only that the common diseases of the mind—mania, depression, and related quirks—shouldn’t disqualify one from the upper stairs of public life, and for a simple reason: they are remarkably consistent predictors of brilliant success.
Depression in all its forms (which Ghaemi finds in Abraham Lincoln and the mildly bipolar Churchill) brings suffering, which makes one more clear-eyed, fit to recognize the world’s problems, and able to face them down like the noonday demon. Madness in all its forms ( which Ghaemi detects in FDR and JFK) brings resilience, which helps one learn from failure, often with enough creativity to make a new start. Most originally, Ghaemi coins "the inverse law of sanity" : the perils of well-being. It’s why the poor, sane Neville Chamberlain chummed around with Nazi leaders while Churchill’s "black dog" foresaw a fight.
In Ghaemi’s view, even our supposedly crazy leaders were too sane for their times, and the nation suffered. When Richard Nixon faced the Watergate crisis, "he handled it the way an average normal person would handle it: he lied, and he dug in, and he fought. " Similarly, George W. Bush was " middle of the road in his personality traits, " which is why his response to the September 11 attacks was simplistic, unwavering, and, above all, "normal. "
So should we bring on the crazy in 2012 At the very least, we should rethink our definitions and stop assuming that normality is always good, and abnormality always bad. If Ghaemi is right, that is far too simplistic and stigmatizing, akin to excluding people by race or religion—only possibly worse because excellence can clearly spring from the unwell, and mediocrity from the healthy. The challenge is getting voters to think this way, too. It won’t do to have candidates shaking Prozac bottles (一种治疗抑郁症的物) from the podium, unless the public is ready to reward them for it. Amid multiple wars and lingering recession, maybe that time is now.
According to Nassir Ghaemi, which of the following is Not the necessary conditions to make a great leader

A:Mature charm as a leader. B:Stirring external situation. C:Disturbed personal disposition. D:A position to exert full potential.

Winston Churchill gave a {{U}}moving{{/U}} speech.

A:nervous B:foolish C:stirring D:fast

Winston Churchill gave a {{U}}moving{{/U}} speech.

A:nervous B:foolish C:stirring D:fast

Winston Churchill gave a {{U}}moving{{/U}} speech.

A:nervous B:foolish C:stirring D:fast