在线国产一区二区_成人黄色片在线观看_国产成人免费_日韩精品免费在线视频_亚洲精品美女久久_欧美一级免费在线观看

您現在的位置: 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.

 
 
相關文章 Related Stories
 
         
 
 
 
 
 
         

 

 

 
 

48小時內最熱門

     
  “交通協管員”怎么說
  Loose cannon:無視規矩的人
  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: 免费不卡视频 | 欧美日韩国语 | 午夜视频免费 | 亚洲女人天堂色在线7777 | 成人在线视频播放 | 免费成人av在线 | 免费一区二区三区 | 日韩中文在线 | 色婷婷综合久久久久中文一区二 | 国产日韩视频在线观看 | 女人久久久 | 男女瑟瑟视频 | 成人片免费看 | 久久精品高清视频 | 亚洲一区二区精品视频 | 午夜精品一区二区三区在线观看 | 最新国产在线 | 日韩久久久久 | 欧美三级 欧美一级 | 呦呦精品 | 欧美系列第一页 | 91久久精品日日躁夜夜躁欧美 | 国产成人精品在线观看 | 久久国产精品一区二区三区 | 国产日产久久欧美精品一区 | 中文字幕一区二区三区在线视频 | 久久久精品国产 | 91大神免费在线观看 | 国产精品特级毛片一区二区三区 | 成人黄色免费 | 欧美成人精品一区二区 | 一区二区三区四区在线 | 久久综合色视频 | 国产成人av一区二区 | 91精品一区 | 男男gay腐片h大尺度 | 亚洲一区二区高清视频 | 欧美日韩综合精品 | 性做久久久久久久免费看 | 免费视频爱爱太爽了 | 日韩视频专区 |