论文部分内容阅读
常见某些编辑选稿时,注意了一面而忽视了另一面,带来的效果并不见得好。比如4月24日《新民晚报》“家事”版头条位置刊登了一篇题为《富人的孩子早当家》的稿件,写的是一个广东老板,生意上太忙,将两个孩子送到上海来求学,两个孩子挺懂事,渐渐学会自立。事情本不错,但写到最后带出另一个问题.原来他俩还有一个妹妹在广东父母身边,这样说来此对夫妇至少生育了三个孩子(仅仅从文字上看)。由此使人感到广东那边是怎么搞计划生育的?从照片看两个哥哥也不过是小学生,而我国计划生育工作早就规定一对夫妇只能生一个孩子,这对夫妇是大大超标了像这类报道是“得”还是“失”?看上去是表扬了两个孩子及其已为“富人”的父母,其实另一面又使人感到这对夫妇不值得报道,难道
Some common editors select the manuscript, pay attention to one side and ignore the other side, the effect is not good. For example, April 24, “Xinmin Evening News,” “Family” version of the headline position published an article entitled “the rich man’s early home,” the manuscript, is written in a Guangdong boss, business too busy, two children to Shanghai to study, two children quite sensible, and gradually learn to self-reliance. It was not a bad thing, but at the end of the day it was brought to another question that the two of them had a younger sister beside their Guangdong parents, saying that the couple had at least three children (literally). This makes people feel that there is how to engage in family planning in Guangdong? From the photos to see the two brothers are no more than pupils, and our family planning work has long stipulated that a couple can only have one child, the couple is greatly exceeded the image Are these reports “too” or “lost”? It appears that the two children and their parents, who have been “rich”, appear to be praising the couple for not being worth reporting on the other side.