单选题 Years ago, when I first started building websites for newspapers, many journalists told me that they saw the Internet as the end of reliable journalism. Since anyone could publish whatever they wanted online, "real journalism" would be overwhelmed, they said. Who would need professional reporters and editors if anyone could be a reporter or an editor? I would tell them not to worry. While my personal belief is that anyone can be a reporter or editor, I also know that quality counts. And that the "viral" nature of the Internet means that when people find quality, they let other people know about it. Even nontraditional media sites online will survive only if the quality of their information is trusted. The future of online news will demand more good reporters and editors, not fewer.
So I was intrigued when Newsweek recently published a story called "Revenge of the Expert". It argued that expertise would be the main component of "Web 3.0". "The wisdom of the crowds has peaked," says Jason Calacanis, founder of the Maholo "people-powered search engine" and a former AOL executive. "Web 3.0 is taking what we"ve built in Web 2.0—the wisdom of the crowds—and putting an editorial layer on it of truly talented, compensated people to make the product more trusted and refined." Well, yes and no. Sure, it is important for people to trust the information they find online. And as the Newsweek article argues, the need for people to find trusted information online is increasing, thus the need for more expertise. But the article fails to mention the most important feature of the world of digital information. It"s not expertise—it"s choice.
In many cases the sites that people come to trust are built on nontraditional models of expertise. Look at sites like Digg.com, Reddit.com, or Slashdot.com. There, users provide the expertise on which others depend. When many users select a particular story, that story accumulates votes of confidence, which often lead other users to choose that story. The choices of the accumulated community are seen as more trustworthy than the "gatekeeper" model of traditional news and information. Sometimes such sites highlight great reporting from traditional media. But often they bring forward bits of important information that are ignored (or missed) by "experts". It"s sort of the "open source" idea of information—a million eyes looking on the Web for information is better than a few.
Jay Rosen, who writes the PressThink blog, says in an e-mail that he"s seen this kind of story before, calling it a "kind of pathetic" trend reporting. "I said in 2006, when starting NewAssignment. Net, that the strongest editorial combinations will be pro-am. I still think that. Why? Because for most reporters covering a big sprawling beat, it"s still true what Dan Gillmor said: "My readers know more than I do." And it"s still the case that tapping into that knowledge is becoming more practical because of the Internet."
J. D. Lasica, a social-media strategist and former editor, also says he sees no departure from the "wisdom of the crowds" model. "I"ve seen very little evidence that the sweeping cultural shifts we"ve seen in the past half dozen years show any signs of retreating," Mr. Lasica says. "Young people now rely on social networks ... to take cues from their friends on which movies to see, books to read... And didn"t "Lonely Planet Guide" explore this terrain for travel and Zagat"s for dining back in the "90s?"
In many cases, traditional media is still the first choice of online users because the reporters and editors of these media outlets have created a level of trust for many people—but not for everyone. When you combine the idea of expertise with the idea of choice, you discover nontraditional information sites that become some of the Internet"s most trusted places. Take SCOTUSblog.com, written by lawyers about cases in the Supreme Court. It has become the place to go for other lawyers, reporters, and editors to find in-depth information about important cases. The Internet also allows individuals to achieve this level of trust. For instance, the Scobleizer.com blog written by Robert Scoble. Mr. Scoble, a former Microsoft employee and tech expert, is widely seen as one of the most important people to read when you want to learn what"s happening in the world of technology. He built his large audience on the fact that people trust his writing.
To me, it"s the best of all possible information worlds.
单选题 According to the passage, the expression "real journalism" is used to refer to ______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 根据上下文正确理解词语和句子的能力。real journalism出现在第一段，指的是网络时代人人都可以提供、报道新闻(即文中描述的anyone could publish whatever they wanted online)这一巨大变化，选项A与文中所指正相反，选项C提到的online news and information只说对了一半，选项D把传统的媒介和今天流行的Online media“统”在了一起，不符合文中所述。
单选题 When the author is describing the "viral" nature of the Internet (para. 1), he uses the metaphorical expression to tell the readers that ______.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 根据上下文正确理解词语的能力。该形容词出现在第一段，有的考生可能比较陌生，但如果考生记得其名词形式virus(病毒)的话，作一定“联想”，其意思不难猜出。这里作者把Internet说成有viral的特性，显然是一比喻说法，指网上发布的任何东西传播速度都很快。本题根据常识和上下文应能作出判断。virus和viral根据人的认知一般有“贬义”色彩，但作者在这里使用并不含有贬义成分，应该说是一种中性的用法。选项A，B与文中描述并不一致，选项D描述的虽是作者介绍的一种状况，但不是作者在这里使用viral欲表达的意思。
单选题 Which of the following does NOT support the statement "It"s not expertise—it"s choice" (para. 2)?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 根据上下文正确理解句子的能力。该句是第二段的结尾句，在第二和第三段之间起了一个“承上启下”的作用，也是作者和《新闻周刊》文章作者观点的一个“针锋相对”的表白。整个第三段是作者对自己的这一观点的举例和解析，选项B，C，D是对作者在该段中的部分句子内容的概括，应予排除。而选项A和作者的观点相反，实际上是《新闻周刊》一文的观点，为正确答案。
单选题 What is the major argument of the passage?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 对文章的主旨大意的理解。选项A只是代表了文章介绍的一种流行看法而已，并非作者讨论的中心点，选项B的观点也是作者不赞成的一种看法，选项D的观点在文中并未有体现说明，均予排除。选项C是贯穿全文的一个思想，无论是大观点的讨论阐述还是以具体的事例人物说明，都试图在表达这一看法，包括作者介绍的Jay Rosen，J. D. Lasica等人的观点，可以说这一观点的展示是相当充分的。
单选题 The author introduces the Newsweek article "Revenge of the Expert"
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 对文章中隐含意思的推测，具体而言是要求判断作者引介《新闻周刊》一文的目的。这可以从作者的整个行文来推断，因此需要考生对全文的论证和写作结构有一整体把握。选项B的内容在文中并未有所体现(其实是相反的)，选项C并非作者实际操作所示(且文中不可能谈及real journalism的终结)，选项D同样是作者予以否定的看法，均予排除。选项A说明了作者列举此文是为了提出他自己的观点，为正确答案。