注册 登录  
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭









2009-05-24 15:41:24|  分类: expect |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |










China: IsaacMao #twinterviews Hu Yong

Thursday, May7th, 2009 @ 15:58 UTC

by John Kennedy

Those faithfully following the #China Twitter streamlate on the working day on Thursday were treated to a surprise when Isaac Mao began twinterviewingPeking University associate professor of new media Hu Yong, author of severalbooks related to Internet theory and culture.

From Mao's blog, Isaac 2.0,here is the transcript:

#1 作為中國最早感知互聯網浪潮的一撮人,當時和現在有什么差別?

Q1: As one of theearliest few people in China to sense the Internet wave coming, how do thingsdiffer now from back then?
A1: At the time it was Adam and Eve and a simple garden; now, “Paradise Lost”has become a jungle. The law of the jungle prevails.

#2 可是《數字化生存》并沒有考慮到那么多復雜情況,是否還是過于理想?

Q2: Yet in “BeingDigital”, things don't seem so complicated, was it perhaps too idealistic?
A2: The main point in “Being Digital” was to point out that the society of thefuture would be constructed of bits, and not atoms. This can explain why somany industries today are in such dire straits, and can also explain why theChinese government spends such vast human and material resources in patching upthe wall. Of course, at that time, I was just as much an optimist asNegroponte, still believing in “shiny, happy bits”.

#3 可是我還是有疑問,尤其對中國,比特對傳統的思維催生變化了嗎?

Q3: But I'm stillskeptical, especially with regards to China; will bits bring about change intraditional thinking?
A3: Changing traditional thinking won't happen overnight. Bits have launched aprocess of rising cacophony: once we were completely silent, but with the firstopportunity to speak, nobody is just talking, they're shouting. But we can'tundervalue the role of speaking: it's the cure for a psychological wound,curing the wound inflicted on China by a thousand years of autocracy.

#4 正要問《眾聲喧嘩》這本書,大家是喧嘩了,可是獲取手段多的人似乎更焦慮,那么沒有信息的人似乎反倒很安逸,這是真諦嗎?

Q4: I want to askabout your book “The Rising Cacophony”. Everybody is making noise, and thosewith the most access to it seem to be the most worried, while yet those peoplewho lack information seem to be the calmeste, does that sound true to you?
A4: Good question! Which is, why are those with more information the ones havingthe most dialogue and discussion. Sometimes, we arm ourselves to death with newtechnology; caught up in the embrace of technology as such, we forget about thefundamentals of society. China today needs to discuss a series of fundamentalproblems within society; a civilization which refuses to discuss majorproblems, if it doesn't lead to totalitarianism, then it leads itself to death.

#5 你的電視媒體實踐也產生了很多影響,例如CCTV-2的變化(我叫#CCAV),是否更有相互比較的意味

Q5: Yourexperience in television media has had great impact, such as the changes atCCTV-2. Between the two, which has comparatively more significance?
A5: I object to any stance which advocates not watching, visiting, listening toor talking about CCTV news, propaganda programs or websites, because every inchof territory is worth fighting for.

#6 在《草根不盡》報告導讀中,講了媒體和權力的關系,新媒體似乎更激進地改變這種關系,但是也被有效地鉗制在一定強度內,縱觀媒體史,會亘古不破嗎?

Q6: In the Info-Rhizome report, you say thatwithin the relationship between media and authority, new media seems to moreradically change this kind of relationship, but at the same time areconstricted within a certain degree of influence; looking at the history ofmedia, can that ever change?
A6: Foucault once said that, “[w]hat makes power hold good, what makes itaccepted, is simply the fact that is doesn't only weigh on us as a force thatsays no; it also traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, formsknowledge, produces discourse.” New media, however, revolts against thehigh-handedness of “no”, but also revolts against the traversal of “yes”; whichis why we must remember Orwell, and definitely mustn't forget Huxley.

#7 在美國,傳統媒體產業已經惶惶不可終日,四處尋找出路,這種先發焦慮是不是更有利于中國媒體軟轉型?

Q7: In America,traditional media are nearing their end of days, searching everywhere for a wayout. Does this sort of early anxiety signal well for the soft transition ofmedia in China?
A7: The transition will be much easier for periodicals and books, because theyare more highly market-oriented; television will find it more difficult,because of now abnormally television is structured in China, burdened by bothideology and monopoly. Regardless, an investment of forty-five billion RMB forexternal propaganda willnot encourage transformation.

#8 这个外宣媒体让我很困惑的,是不是会解决很多外国人就业的问题?

Q8: This externalpropaganda media leaves me feeling quite confused; is it supposed to createjobs for a lot of foreigners?
A8: Journalism professor at the University of Southern California Nicholas Cullput it very precisely. He said that the Chinese government has relied onnewspapers, television and cultural exchanges in a series of attempts at whatis called “internal propaganda through external propaganda”. Put another way,the way the Chinese government sees it, letting the Chinese people see thatChinese culture is being promoted to the entire world is the most important.Many people doubt the effects of propaganda, seeing it as barking up the wrongtree.

#9 那么中国教授呢?在教室里,是否也需要時常自我審查?尺度是什么?

Q9: What aboutChinese academics then? In the classroom, do they regularly need toself-censor? And what is the yardstick for that?
A9: Yardstick? No different than that for media, it extends as far as peopleare willing to probe. Back in the day, there was a joke in America about thedefinition of obscene material: ‘Obscene material? I know it when Isee it.‘ In China, whether speech is inappropriate or illegal, goes aboutthe same.

#10 如果倒退回20年,有互联网,是不是社会看上去比今天更乐观一些?

Q10: If theInternet had been around twenty years ago, do you think society would have beena bit more optimistic than it is today?
A10: Haha, back to the future…..the eighties were the best years of China overthe past sixty years. Back then, we at least hadthe “Two Majors”, the ‘Major Affairs The People Need To Know' and ‘MajorAffairs The People Need To Discuss'…if you think about it, using the Internetfulfills both the Two Majors, isn't that a bit more optimistic?




I don’tmean to offend, but each question can do an interview, otherwise it is toonarrow and seems like Cacophony. They are good topics indeed.




Twitter作采访,和添加QQ好友 /Email/书信作采访,最大的不同是Twitter是即时公开的,确实有点像live版的电视座谈——但如作者所说,这个环境是嘈杂的。这种情况下,观众随时都在发表言论,也极可能不被理会,真正作为采访发布的仍然是后期的整理。我并不认为这是有新意的,它是一种效率低下的聊天方式,没有动作眼神的肢体交流,没有书信往来的情感流露,没有道具刺激被访者的感情,整理可能也缺乏专业性——Q&A? 或许可以吧。我更看好YouTube的采访视频,观众可以针对某一段发表评论,但都不会干扰访谈对话的交流。如果需要被访者解答问题,事后给他Twitter吧。



的确,由于是初步尝试,这种公共访谈还可以有许多改进之处,比如网友Jack Zhan说,如果事先约好用同一个标签,这样一搜索这个标签,就能串起来看了。




阅读(200)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载




<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->


网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2018