单选题 Our public debates often fly off into the wild blue yonder of fantasy. So it's been with the Federal Communications Commission's new media-ownership rules. We're told that, unless the FCC's decision is reversed, it will worsen the menacing concentration of media power and that this will--to exaggerate only slightly--imperil free speech, the diversity of opinion and perhaps democracy itself. All this is more than overwrought; it completely misrepresents reality.
In the past 30 years, media power has splintered dramatically; people have more choices than ever. Travel back to 1970. There were only three major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC); now, there's a fourth (Fox). Then, there was virtually no cable TV; now, 68 percent of households have it. Then, FM radio was a backwater; now there are 5, 892 FM stations, up from 2, 196 in 1970. Then, there was only one national newspaper (The Wall Street Journal); now, there are two more (USA Today and The New York Times).
The idea that "big media" has dangerously increased its control over our choices is absurd. Yet much of the public, including journalists and politicians, believe religiously in this myth. They confuse size with power. It's true that some gigantic media companies are gettingeven bigger at the expense of other media companies. But it's not true that their power is increasing at the public's expense.
Popular hostility toward big media stems partly from the growing competition, which creates winners and losers--and losers complain. Liberals don't like the conservative talk shows, but younger viewers do. A June poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that viewers from the ages of 18 to 29 approved of "hosts with strong opinions" by a 58 percent to 32 percent margin. Social conservatives despise what one recently called "the raw sewage, ultrawiolence, graphic sex and raunchy languages of TV. But many viewers love it. Journalists detest the cost and profit pressures that result from stiff competition with other news and entertainment outlets.
It's the tyranny of the market: a triumph of popular tastes. Big media companies try to anticipate, shape and profit from these tastes. But media diversity frustrates any one company from imposing its views and values on an unwilling audience. People just click to another channel or cancel their subscription. The paradox is this:the explosion of choices means that almost everyone may be offended by something. A lot of this free-floating hostility has attached itself to the FCC ownership rules.
The backlash is easily exaggerated. In the Pew poll, 51 percent of respondents knew "nothing" of the rhles; an additional 36 percent knew only "a little". The rules would permit any company to own television stations in areas with 45 percent of U. S. households, up from 35 percent now. The networks could buy more of their affiliate stations-a step that, critics say, would jeopardize "local" control and content.
At best, that's questionable. Network programs already fill most of affiliates' hours. To keep local audiences, any owner must satisfy local demands, especially for news and weather programming. But the symbolic backlash against the FCC and big media does pose one hidden danger. For some U. S. households, over-the-air broadcasting is the only TV available, and its long term survival is hardly ensured. Both cable and the Internet are eroding its audience. In 2002 cable programming had more prime-time viewers than broadcast programming for the first time (48 percent vs. 46 percent). Streaming video, now primitive, will improve; sooner or later--certainly in the next 10 or 15 years-many Web sites will be TV channels. If overthe-air broadcasting declines or disappears, the big losers will be the poor.
Broadcast TV will survive and flourish only if the networks remain profitable enough to bid for and provide competitive entertainment, sports and news programming. The industry's structure must give them a long-term stake in over-the air broadcasting. Owning more TV stations is one possibility. If Congress prevents that, it may perversely hurt the very diversity and the people that it's trying to protect.

单选题 When the author talks about FCC's decision in the first paragraph,
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】态度题。由题干定位至首段。第三句句首的We’re told表明下面内容是他人的观点： it will worsen the menacing concentration of media power and that this will…imperil free speech…。末句才是作者的观点：it completely misrepresents reality，显然作者不认同前面说的“FCC的决议会危害言论自由、民主”等论调，故[A]为答案。
单选题 All of the following are people's worries EXCEPT that
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】细节题。由选项中的media companies定位至第三段。首句指出：那种认为大媒体公司会加强控制我们选择的想法是愚蠢的。第三句指出原因：they confuse size with power．这意味着人们认为公司规模增大，就会变得更加强大，[A]符合文意。结合首句可以得出[B]符合文意。末句的“But it's not true that their
power is increasing at the public’s expense"表明[C]符合文意。倒数第二句与[D]意思一致，但显然这不是人们反对FCC决定的理由，即不是人们的担心，故[D]为答案。
单选题 The word "raunchy" in the fourth paragraph probably means
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】语义理解题。由题干定位至第四段。第四句提到保守人士对电视的看法： the raw sewage，ultra-violence，graphic sex and raunchy language，句中的despise(鄙视)和“垃圾”、“超暴力”等都是对电视的负面评价，显然raunchy language应与它们处于同一语义场，排除[B]“使感动的”和[C]“精致的”。[A]意为“大胆的”，也有正面含义，排除。只有[D]“下流的”符合本处语境，故为答案。
单选题 According to the passage, the wide spread of cable and Internet will be detrimental to
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】细节题。由题于中的cable and Internet定位至倒数第二段。第五句中的"For some U．S．households， over-the-air broadcasting iS the only TV available"和第六句的"Both cable and the Internet are eroding its audience"表明over-the-air broadcasting受到威胁。末句指出：If over-the-air broadcasting declines or disappears， the big losers will be the poor，可见，穷人是有线和互联网的受害者，故[C]为答案。
单选题 It can be inferred from the last paragraph that the author
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】推断题。直接定位至末段。第三句提到了让over-the-air broadcasting生存下去的办法：Owning more TV stations is one possibility．从前面内容可知，“拥有更多的电视台”是FCC决议的内容，也是反对者们表示反对的原因。从末句"If Congress prevents that，it may perversely hurt the very diversity and the people that it's trying to protect"可知，作者认为Congress应该批准该项决议，以保护节目多样化及观众中的穷人。可推知[B]符合文意，故为答案。[A]与文意相反，排除。末段未提到media companies，排除[C]和[D]