On April 3rd a handful of supporters greeted Josh Wolf as he came out of prison in Dublin, California. He had spent more than seven months in jail for refusing to testify and turn over to federal prosecutors a videotape of a 2005 street demonstration in San Francisco. The prosecutors were investigating injury to a policeman and minor damage to a police car. It is apparently the longest an American journalist has served for protecting his sources and materials.

   What makes the case odder is that Mr Wolf, who is 24, is a video-blogger as much as a freelance journalist. Moreover, the material was from a public setting and the sources have scant claim to confidentiality. He could have been protected by California's generous “shield law” for journalists, but the federal government became involved on the thinnest of pretexts: namely, that it partly finances the San Francisco Police Department. This made Mr Wolf feel that though the evidential value of his videotape was low, the federal prosecutors meant to force him to identify the masked protesters before a grand jury. This, he said, would have transformed him into an investigator for the government. So he chose jail instead.

   The case raises hard issues. What are the rights of bloggers in an era when almost anyone may claim to qualify for a journalist's protection? What legal privilege do reporters enjoy to keep source material from government's prying eyes? And did federal prosecutors abuse their authority by bringing charges for small municipal offences, thereby deliberately bypassing the state's law shielding journalists?

   Mr Wolf's case underscores the reality that journalists—or simply those who behave as if they were journalists, when formally they are not—have few rights to shield themselves from revealing their sources or reportorial material. Although 49 states offer certain rights (Wyomin is the exception), only the barest protection exists at national level. Potential federal legislation, which has bipartisan support, would require prosecutors to show that the information is necessary and cannot be otherwise obtained. The debate is over how broad the shield should be. Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer. In 1972 the Supreme Court, in the Branzburg case, said that reporters had no shield. But a concurring opinion contained the remark that the government should show the “necessity” of forcing reporters to testify. Prosecutors have largely accepted this legal gloss, until the recent cases when they have attacked on the press—or on “citizen journalists” like Mr Wolf.

   “The whole issue of whether or not I am a journalist is irrelevant: the first amendment was written to protect pamphleteers,” says Mr Wolf. He did not have time to get a card-carrying reporter's job, since he was imprisoned two months after graduating from university. “This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”

   注（1）：本文選自Economist, 04/12/2007

   注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象為2003年真題Text 4。

   1． What is implied in the first two paragraphs?

    [A] The case was not supposed to have lasted for such a long time.

    [B] “Shield law” is meant to protect journlist’s privileges.

    [C] It is a case about jounalist’s right of protection.

    [D] Journalists usually refuse to become government’s investigator.

   2． The author quotes Floyd Abrams’s explanation to show that _______.

    [A] it is difficult to define a proper “shield” that journalists should be entitled to

    [B] the protection should enable journalists to safeguard most resources

    [C] the federal legislation is still undergoing the debate on journalists’ right

    [D] the protection should be strictly limited to a certain degree

   3． Josh Wolf’s attitude towards his case is _______.

    [A] indifferent

    [B] outrageous

    [C] sad

    [D] considerate

   4． Journalists’ protection rights exist _______.

    [A] only at the national level

    [B] only at the sate level

    [C] clearly at both the national and state level

    [D] clearly at the national level and vaguely at the state level

   5． The text intends to express the idea that _______.

    [A] people should be more concerned about whether they can enjoy jounlists’ protection

    [B] the first amendment should be given a clearer explanation on journalists’ rights

    [C] the legislation for journalists’ privilege of protecting resources has a long way to go

    [D] more campaigns should be launched to protest federal prosecutors’ abusing authority

   篇章剖析

   本文討論的是在美國(guó)，記者是否應(yīng)該具有合法保護(hù)特權(quán)這個(gè)問題。第一、二段簡(jiǎn)要介紹了約什·沃爾夫一案；第三段提出了與話題有關(guān)的幾個(gè)主要問題；第四段從法律上討論了記者是否享受保護(hù)、以及如何享受保護(hù)等；第五段是沃爾夫先生對(duì)整個(gè)事件的評(píng)論。

   詞匯注釋

   testify [`testifai] v. 證明, 作證               pry [prai] v. 探查

   prosecutor [`prCsikju:tE] n. 起訴人；檢舉人   bypass [`baipB:s] vt. 設(shè)旁路, 迂回

   freelance n. 自由作家；自由記者            underscore [9QndE5skC:] vt. 劃線于...下, 強(qiáng)調(diào)

   scant [skAnt] adj. 缺乏的,不足的            bipartisan [bai9pB:ti`zAn] adj. 兩黨連立的

   confidentiality [kCnfi9denFE`Aliti]n. 機(jī)密性   dilute [dai`lju:t] v. 沖淡, 變淡, 變?nèi)?/p>

   shield [Fi:ld] n. 防護(hù)物, 護(hù)罩                eligible [`elidVEbl] adj. 符合條件的, 合格的

   pretext [`pri:tekst] n. 借口, 托辭              amendment [E`mendmEnt] n. 修正案

   transform [trAns`fC:m] vt. 轉(zhuǎn)換, 改變, 改造   pamphleteer [9pAmfli`tiE] n. 小冊(cè)子作者

   難句突破

   Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

   主體句式  … explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

   結(jié)構(gòu)分析  這是一個(gè)倒裝的句子結(jié)構(gòu)，其正常的結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)該為Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer explains that，前面的內(nèi)容都是explain的賓語，是間接引語。賓語由兩個(gè)并列結(jié)構(gòu)組成，中間以分號(hào)分隔。其中第二個(gè)分句是一個(gè)省略句，完整的句子應(yīng)該為apply it too narrowly and …。

   句子譯文  第一修正案律師弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會(huì)不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會(huì)使得應(yīng)受到保護(hù)的人得不到保護(hù)。

   題目分析

   1．C. 推理題。選項(xiàng)A、B、D都屬于細(xì)節(jié)問題，在文中都可以找到對(duì)應(yīng)的信息。選項(xiàng)C歸納了前兩段的內(nèi)容。

   2．A. 推理題。弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯的話的意思是，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會(huì)不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會(huì)使得應(yīng)受到保護(hù)的人得不到保護(hù)�？梢娨�確定記者保護(hù)權(quán)的范圍還是非常困難的。

   3．B. 態(tài)度題。文章對(duì)應(yīng)信息為最后一句“This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”，從“hell”這個(gè)詞看出來沃爾夫是非常生氣的。

   4．D. 推理題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息為“Although 49 states offer certain rights (Wyomin is the exception), only the barest protection exists at national level”，最明確的立法只是停留在美國(guó)整個(gè)聯(lián)邦的程度，但是還沒有明確地具體到各個(gè)州。

   5．C. 主旨題。要縱觀全文，不要受到一些細(xì)節(jié)方面的干擾。

   參考譯文

   4月3日，一群支持者向剛剛從加州的都柏林監(jiān)獄被釋放約什·沃爾夫表示祝賀。他已經(jīng)被關(guān)了七個(gè)多月，原因是他拒絕作證以及拒絕向聯(lián)邦檢察官交出關(guān)于2005年發(fā)生在舊金山一場(chǎng)示威游行的錄象帶。當(dāng)時(shí)，那些檢察官們正在調(diào)查一起傷害警察及破壞警車案。在所有因?yàn)楸Ｗo(hù)消息來源和資料而被關(guān)押的記者中，顯然沃爾夫是關(guān)押時(shí)間最長(zhǎng)的一個(gè)。

   這件案子的特別之處在于，24歲的沃爾夫既是一個(gè)播客作者也是一個(gè)自由撰稿人。此外，他所掌握的資料是從公共設(shè)施上拍下來，其消息來源也沒有聲明其保密性。他本可得到加州慷慨的“新聞保障法”對(duì)于記者的保護(hù)，但是聯(lián)邦政府卻找出了一個(gè)非常牽強(qiáng)的借口：從名義上來說，洛衫機(jī)警署的資金部分來自政府。這就使得沃爾夫先生覺得，盡管他的錄象帶沒有很高的證據(jù)價(jià)值，但是聯(lián)邦檢察官故意強(qiáng)迫他在大培審團(tuán)面前確認(rèn)那些帶面具的反對(duì)者。他認(rèn)為這會(huì)使得他變成政府的探子。所以他寧愿選擇進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。

    這個(gè)案子引起了人們對(duì)一些棘手問題的關(guān)注。在一個(gè)幾乎所有人都可以聲稱自己具備得到記者保護(hù)的條件的時(shí)代，博客作者們到底都有哪些權(quán)利呢？為了保護(hù)消息來源不被政府的眼線查到，記者們享有什么樣的合法特權(quán)呢？當(dāng)聯(lián)邦檢察官們?yōu)榱斯室獗荛_州級(jí)記者保護(hù)法律而對(duì)小型市級(jí)違法行為提起訴訟時(shí)，他們是否濫用了自己的權(quán)力呢？

   沃爾夫案突顯了一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)，那就是記者——或者只是那些以記者自居但嚴(yán)格說不是記者的人——在保護(hù)消息來源和報(bào)道材料方面幾乎沒有任何的權(quán)利。盡管有49個(gè)州提供一些權(quán)利（除了懷俄明州），但最明確的相關(guān)規(guī)定只是停留在全國(guó)的層面上。一項(xiàng)得到兩黨支持的可能即將生效的法律中規(guī)定，檢察官要證明需要得到信息是必需的且不能從其它途徑獲得。爭(zhēng)議的內(nèi)容主要在于對(duì)記者權(quán)利保護(hù)的范圍大小。第一修正案律師弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯，如果法案適用范圍太廣，其效力會(huì)不可避免地降低；如果太狹窄則又會(huì)使得應(yīng)受到保護(hù)的人得不到保護(hù)。1972年，最高法院在布蘭斯堡訴海斯案件中聲稱，記者無權(quán)享受保護(hù)。但同時(shí)還出現(xiàn)了一些其他觀點(diǎn)，如政府在強(qiáng)迫記者作證時(shí)需證明“必要性”。檢察官普遍都已經(jīng)接受了這一法律解釋，直到最近他們又重新開始攻擊媒體——或者是像沃爾夫這樣的“民間記者”的案子。

   “整件事情跟我是不是記者沒有關(guān)系：第一修證案本來意在保護(hù)所有的作者，甚至包括小冊(cè)子撰寫人，” 沃爾夫說。他還沒來得及得到得到一份攜帶記者證的工作，因?yàn)樗麆倧拇髮W(xué)畢業(yè)就被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄兩個(gè)月�！斑@是我進(jìn)入記者世界的開始，”他說，“一個(gè)極度糟糕的開始�！�