美国经典英文演讲100篇48

美国经典英文演讲100篇48内容摘要：

rge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children39。 s news show explaining something to them about the world at their level of understanding? Is there no room for reading the great literature of the past, for teaching them the great traditions of freedom? There are some fine children39。 s shows, but they are drowned out in the massive doses of cartoons, violence, and more violence. Must these be your trademarks? Search your consciences and see if you cannot offer more to your young beneficiaries whose future you guide so many hours each and every day. Now what about adult programming and ratings? You know, newspaper publishers take popularity ratings too. And the answers are pretty clear: It is almost always the ics, followed by advice to the lovelorn columns. But, ladies and gentlemen, the news is still on the front page of all newspapers。 the editorials are not replaced by more ics。 and the newspapers have not bee one long collection of advice to the lovelorn. Yet newspapers do not even need a license from the government to be in business。 they do not use public property. But in television, where your responsibilities as public trustees are so plain, the moment that the ratings indicate that westerns are popular there are new imitations of westerns on the air faster than the old coaxial cable could take us from Hollywood to New York. Broadcasting cannot continue to live by the numbers. Ratings ought to be the slave of the broadcaster, not his master. And you and I both know You and I both know that the rating services themselves would agree. Let me make clear that what I am talking about is balance. I believe that the public interest is made up of many interests. There are many people in this great country and you must serve all of us. You will get no argument from me if you say that, given a choice between a western and a symphony, more people will watch the western. I like westerns too, but a steady diet for the whole country is obviously not in the public interest. We all know that people would more often prefer to be entertained than stimulated or informed. But your obligations are not satisfied if you look only to popularity as a test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show business。 you are free to municate ideas as well as relaxation. And as Governor Collins said to you yesterday when he encouraged you to editorialize as you know the FCC has now encouraged editorializing for years. We want you to do this。 we want you to editorialize, take positions. We only ask that you do it in a fair and a responsible manner. Those stations that have editorialized have demonstrated to you that the FCC will always encourage a fair and responsible clash of opinion. You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives. It is not enough to cater to the nation39。 s whims。 you must also serve the nation39。 s needs. And I would add this: that if some of you persist in a relentless search for the highest rating and the lowest mon denominator, you may very well lose your audience. Because, to paraphrase a great American who was recently my law partner, the people are wise, wiser than some of the broadcasters and politicians think. As you may have gathered, I would like to see television improved. But how is this to be brought about? By voluntary action by the broadcasters themselves? By direct government intervention? Or how? Let me address myself now to my role not as a viewer but as chairman of the FCC. I could not if I would, chart for you this afternoon in detail all of the actions I contemplate. Instead, I want to make clear some of the fundamental principles which guide me. First: the people own the air. And they own it as much in prime evening time as they do at six o39。 clock Sunday morning. For every hour that the people give you you owe them something. And I intend to see that your debt is paid with service. Second: I think it would be foolish and wasteful for us to continue any wornout wrangle over the problems of payola, rigged quiz shows, and other mistakes of the past. There are laws on the books which we will enforce. But there is no chip on my shoulder. We live together in perilous, uncertain times。 we face together staggering problems。 and we must not waste much time now by rehashing the clich233。 s of past controversy. To quarrel over the past is to lose the future. Third: I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to I want to see broadcasting improved, and I want you to do the job. I am proud to champion your cause. It is not rare for American businessmen to serve a public trust. Yours is a special trust because it is imposed by law. Fourth: I will do all I can to help educational television. There are still not enough educational stations, and major centers of the country still lack usable educational channels. If there were a limited number of printing presses in this country, you may be sure that a fair proportion of them would be put to educational use. Educational television has an enormous contribution to make to the future, and I intend to give it a hand along the way. If there is not a nationwide educational television system in this country, it will not be the fault of the FCC. Fifth: I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet with bureaucratic tastes. Censorship strikes at the tap root of our free society. Sixth: I did not e to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public39。 s airwaves. The squandering of our airwaves is no less important than the lavish waste of any precious natural resource. I intend to take the job of chairman of the FCC very seriously. I happen to bel。