CGTN刘欣 | 西方媒体是否站队香港激进示威者？

推荐一个英语与翻译公众号

翻译世界

扫描关注

On Sunday night last week, an unknown number of protesters occupied Hong Kong Polytechnic University campus. Rioters tried to fight off police using a variety of improvised weaponry and dangerous items, including bricks, firebombs, homemade napalm, and bows and arrows. One police officer was injured by an arrow which almost penetrated his leg. 

上周日晚， 数量不明的示威者占领了香港理工大学校园，暴徒使用各类武器和危险物品，包括砖头、燃烧弹、自制汽油弹和弓箭等攻击警方。一名警员几乎被箭射穿小腿。

But if you look at the international media coverage, you might form a different understanding of the situation. For instance, on the campus standoff, you'd think those who occupied the campus were innocent students, or even heroes given the language used by those media outlets to describe the standoff.

但如果看了国际媒体对此事的报道，可能会令你产生不一样的想法。以校园对峙的报道为例，外媒使用的语言和描述方式，会让你误认为占领校园的都是无辜学生，甚至将他们视做英雄。

On Monday, November 18, the New York Times published a story with the headline: "In Hong Kong, Daring Escapes From a Violent Siege at a University." 

本周一，也就是11月18日，《纽约时报》发表了一则报道，题为“香港示威者勇敢逃离遭暴力封锁的校园。”

"Daring" is defined as "bold, courageous, or adventurous"– all adjectives with positive connotations, as if the students who'd been hoarding "homemade firebombs, giant sling shots, bricks and bows and arrows" inside the campus, according to the article, should be celebrated for their bravery.  

标题中“Daring”一词意为“无畏的、有勇气或冒险精神的”，是一个正面意义的形容词。按照这篇报道的意思，好像学生们在校园内大量囤积“自制燃烧弹、大型弹弓、砖头和弓箭”是充满勇气，值得赞扬的行为。 

Also misleading since the article states that: "Police officers have offered protesters one way out of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University campus, but they fear following those instructions could lead to their arrest," and: "Despite running out of options, the students feared they would be arrested if they obeyed police instructions to 'drop their weapons' and leave through one designated exit."

报道中还有几处也颇具误导性：“警方指出了撤离理工大学校园的路线，但示威者担心，如果听从警方指示会遭到逮捕，”还有“即使已经没有退路，学生们仍担心如果服从警方指挥‘放下武器’并从指定出口离开会导致自己被捕。”

So actually, there was no need for them to escape. The police offered a way out on the condition that the rioters drop their weapons. Meaning the rioters who tried to escape either did not want to drop their weapons or were afraid of being arrested. 

所以实际上，暴徒完全没有必要“逃离”。警方已经明确提出，如果暴徒放下武器，便可以从指定路线离开。也就是说，那些试图逃走的示威者要么是没有放下武器的意愿，要么是担心被抓。

What kind of police force would allow rioters to walk out armed with firebombs and bricks? What kind of society would not arrest rioters who hijacked a university, turning it into a weapons factory, and using it as a base to harm police officers?  Where in the world would people be allowed to ransack a place and get away with it? By glamorizing those who break the law, whatever the motivations, whether students or not, the New York Times unfortunately failed to tell the true story.

试问什么样的警察会允许暴力分子手持燃烧弹和砖头离开？暴徒劫持大学校园，将其变为武器制造工厂和袭击警方的大本营，试问什么样的社会会听之任之？试问世界上有哪个国家允许暴徒大肆破坏然后大摇大摆地离开？《纽约时报》在报道这些违法之徒时，不问其动机，也不调查其身份，而是一味粉饰美化他们的行为。很遗憾，这样的报道实在有失真实客观。

Next example comes from the Washington Post with a story also published on Monday, November 18 and the headline reads: "Hong Kong protesters make last stand as police close in on besieged university." Immediately by using "last stand," the headline makes the protesters look like gallant heroes who are faced with overwhelming odds. 

下一个例子是《华盛顿邮报》，同样在11月18日周一刊载的一篇报道，标题是“警方加紧封锁校园，香港示威者背水一战。”“背水一战”，听上去就好像那些示威者是什么英勇无畏的志士，在反抗拥有绝对优势的敌人。

We need look no further than the first paragraph: "Thousands of Hong Kong protesters flocked to the area around a besieged Hong Kong college campus Monday evening, clashing with police as they tried to help hundreds of students trapped inside to leave safely..."  

这篇文章的基调在第一段就显露无疑：“数千名香港示威者涌入遭封锁的大学附近区域，试图帮助几百名遭围困的学生安全撤离，期间与警方发生冲突。”

First of all, many of the people trapped inside were not students at all. So it was premature to characterize them as such. Secondly, when students are armed with bows and arrows, bricks, and stolen chemicals from the school's laboratory among other weapons, can we still call them students?  

首先，被困在校园里面的很多人都不是学生, 把他们硬说成是学生实则草率之举。第二，如果学生们手持弓箭、砖头和从实验室里偷来的化学品作为武器，那么我们还能把他们看作是学生吗？

Calling them "students" give people the impression that they are innocent and vulnerable and thus worthy of people's sympathy. But we have seen the damage and harm that have been done by some of these young "students." We all saw the picture of the man who aimed a bow and arrow in full stretch at police; he was clearly an adult with strong muscles.  

称示威者为“学生”，就会让人觉着他们单纯无助、弱小可怜。我们都看到了一些所谓的年轻“学生”所造成的破坏和伤害；也看到过那张示威者拉满弓箭射向警察的照片, 该名男子显然是个身强体壮的成年人。

The article mentions the students are trapped inside 6 times. To me, saying they are "trapped" makes it sound as if they are helpless victims without any option to leave the campus they chose to occupy in the first place.

文章还六次提到学生们被围困在校园内。在我看来，说他们“被围困”就好像在说他们是无助的受害者，没有条件，无法离开校园，可明明最初就是他们占领了校园。

The very same article then later explains that the police actually did offer the rioters a way out: "Police blocked exits and told exhausted protesters to come out of the Polytechnic University on Monday to be arrested." And: "Late Monday, a deal was reached between the police and mediators to allow those under 18 still sealed off inside Polytechnic University to leave safely, without arrest."

这篇报道里后来又指出，警方实际上给示威者提供了撤离路线，“周一，警方封锁各出口，要求精疲力尽的示威者离开香港理工大学并将对他们予以逮捕。”还有“周一晚些时候，警方和调停者之间达成协议，允许被封锁于校园内18岁以下的学生安全撤离，不予逮捕。”

So these people stayed inside the campus to avoid arrest. Basically they are trapped by their own criminal behavior. And those under 18 were even given the option to leave without being arrested. But if you didn't take the time to read the entire article, you could easily walk away with only a biased slice of the whole story. By phrasing the beginning of the article this way, the journalist is hinting to the reader who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Amid rising tensions, such irresponsible coverage to gloss over protester’s violence is only fueling more anger and possibly lead to more tragedies. 

所以这些人留在校园里是不想被逮捕，他们其实是被自己的犯罪行为困住了。而18岁以下的示威者甚至能够在免遭逮捕的条件下离开校园。但如果读者没时间通篇读完报道，那可能脑海里留下的只是其中那充满偏见的只言片语。 记者选择这样开篇，实则是在引导读者先做出谁是好人，谁又是坏人的是非判断。这种美化暴力、不负责任的报道，在当前紧张的形势下，只会更加火上浇油，可能会引发更多的悲剧。

翻译技术贴

公众号对话框回复“号内搜”，可快捷搜索号内信息

每一个“在看”，我都当成了喜欢