Issue
In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings1 can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benefit.
Sample Essay
Anything that makes a country's government more transparent2 is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely3 affected4 if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage5, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.
One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation's attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting6 in a movie. The spotlight7 was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.
On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy8 so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.
One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place behind the scenes, not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent seeing is believing, quite often it is what you don't see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully9 understand the process a person would actually have to actively10 participate in that process.
Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune11 in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.
Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being watched by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity12 while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.
看法陈述型作文/[题目]
在很多国家，大家目前可以打开电视，便可以看到政府是怎么样运作的。观看到如此一些程序可以帮助大家理解那些影响到其生活的问题。电视转播政府程序----审判，辩论，会议等不一而足----的类型越多，则社会将会获益更多。
[范本正文]
任何能使一个国家的政府更透明的事情无疑一直一件好事情，至少在民主国家里是这样。这类社会通过得以看到他们所选举的政府官员在做些什么而获益匪浅。但，假如只不过笼统地说政府程序转播得越多，社会就会获益更多，那样，这便忽略了如此一个事实，即有的时候，转播得越少越好。有的种类的程序假如进行转播，则甚至会遭到负面影响，使社会处于更糟糕的境地，而不是带来任何裨益。有的种类的政府程序应获得更多的电视报道，但有的应该降低报道，以确保这类程序能适合地进行。
转播所有政府程序会引发负面用途，这方面的例子是美国对所指控的谋杀者和前美式足球全国联赛超级明星O.J.辛普逊的审判。审判全程转播，成为媒体一大焦点，在整个审判进程中吸引了全国的注意力。律师们了解地了解，整个审判程序被转播，他们的所作所为几乎像电影演戏那样。媒体的焦光灯这样穷追不舍，以致于那种马戏团般的环境甚至波及到主审法官。电视镜头的存在与密集的媒体报道成效导致这场审判史无前例，严重干扰到这次审判的正常进程。参与者在镜头面前装腔作势，根本不专注于手头应做的工作。很多人会觉得，非常大程度上因为电视的原故，在这场特定的审判中，正义并未得到申张。
其次，有关政府平时实质工作的电视转播能叫人们直接地深入知道政府事实上是如何运转的。因为电视镜头天天都在那里，政府官员们便变得屡见不鲜，不再会由于它们的存在而受太大的影响。如此，社会就能获益，由于民众可以亲眼目睹实质所在发生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那样藏匿在一层秘密的面纱背后，从而使人无从知道所被选举的官员的神秘行为。
被电视转播的政府程序越多，一个社会就会变得更好，此番陈述的问题之一是，大家或许会以为他们能目睹所有，但在事实上，电视镜头所捕捉到的可能只不过所有发生的事情的一部分，无论有多少电视镜头。政府内发生的相当一部分事情是在幕后完成的，并不一定是在开会场合众目睽睽之下进行的。尽管在某种程度上眼见为实，但在相当多的时候，不为你所见的事情才起着决定性有哪些用途。纯粹去电视转播政府的各项程序，当然能增进理解，但要充分理解某一过程，则大家须事实上积极地参与到这一过程中来。
政府程序电视转播越多越好，这一陈述的另一个问题是，这一陈述觉得当政府程序被转播时，大家事实上正观看着这类程序。美国有一个电视频道，天天播放国会程序，但看这一频道的人寥寥无几。只有当某些重大问题需要进行辨论或进行投票时，才会有很多的人观看这一频道。纯粹电视播放政府程序并不会干扰到社会，除非社会观看这类事件。
社会无疑能得益于电视对某些政府程序的报道。亲眼目睹民选官员处置政府事务，能带来一个额外的理解原因，来弄清政府的内在运转机制。当政治家们被置于电视镜头的注视时，可以使其对其行为负责。他们在处置公众事务时再也没办法隐名埋姓。但政府程序并不是应该全部进行电视转播。有的时候，为了确保能作出正确的决策，隐秘应成为一种绝对的需要。
