复合题

The BBC has long dominated Britain’ s media, but in recent years it has got even bigger, both absolutely and relatively. Many serious broadsheet and local newspapers are dying. Tabloid newspapers have been shamed by a phone- hacking scandal, and are likely to endure stricter oversight in future. The corporation gets £ 3. 6 billion ($5. 7 billion) a year from a licence fee levied on every household that watches television, and is therefore invulnerable to the vagaries of the media market, while the technological change that has caused other media outlets to shrivel has given the BBC new scope for expansion. It has huge online presence and a proliferation of digital television channels and radio stations. With a staff of around 23, 000, it is the largest broadcaster in the world.

The BBC makes good use of some of this money. Its documentaries, serious radio output (such as “Today” ) and website are excellent. Although polls show trust in it is declining, the reputations of other great British institutions, such as Parliament and the City, have fallen further still. The BBC remains respected around the world and is a handy tool for projecting British interests— cheaper and cleaner than bombs.

Yet Britons’ attention has drifted to other entertainments. The BBC’ s share of British viewing time has dropped from over a half three decades ago to under a third today as pay-television and free multichannel services have grown. Britons have noticed. According to a YouGov survey in 2010, 60% regard the licence fee as poor value for money. And the decline of private-sector media outlets raises questions about the impact of the BBC’ s public subsidy. The Guardian, for instance, might make a go of being a British-based global online, leftish news provider, were it not for the state-funded competition.

The BBC’ s size is a problem not just for the competition but for the organization itself. Its bloated management means that those at the top do not know what’ s going on at the bottom, and stunts creativity. Few of its dramas or comedies are world-beaters ("Downton Abbey’ ’ , a current hit, is made by an American-owned independent studio and broadcast on ITV) . Even in news, recent big stories, such as phone-hacking and MP’ s expenses, have been broken by impoverished newspapers, not the sluggish state-backed monolith. Editors should edit—and be responsible for it— not report to compliance officers.

The radical solution would be to get rid of a lot of the BBC. Public broadcasting should focus on areas where the market does not provide — expensive things such as investigative journalism and foreign reporting, serious radio, some areas of arts and science broadcasting— and forget about the prime-time entertainment shows and sports where the BBC spends taxpayers’ money bidding up stars’ wages. A smaller, more focused organization would find it easier to take risks and innovate.

The BBC’ s defenders say that, without popular fodder like “Strictly Come Dancing” audiences would shrink, and the licence fee become impossible to defend. It probably would; and a good thing too, since it is a regressive tax. Public-service broadcasting should be paid for by the Treasury, through a long-term grant made by a self- perpetuating independence body that kept it at arm’ s length from politicians.

A better objection to a complete overhaul now is that politicians have no appetite for such a radical solution, and the BBC needs a set of fixes quickly. One useful change would be to split the job of director-general into those of chief executive and editor-in-chief. The first would be a manager, charged with making the monolith more efficient; the second would be a journalist, charged with producing accurate, hard-hitting stories — and refocusing the output on quality.

Britons are naturally resistant to radical ideas. As the 20th century showed, that is, by and large, a good thing. The danger, though, is that unreformed organizations wither and die, or implode. The media business is one of Britain’ s strengths. If it is to stay that way, the BBC needs to change.

问答题 How has the BBC “grown even bigger, both absolutely and relatively” ?
【正确答案】The BBC is invulnerable to the vagaries of the media market and it has a proliferation of digital television channels and radio stations.
【答案解析】根据题意定位至文章第一段。 该段提到BBC在媒体市场处于风云变幻之时很少受影响, 而其他媒体都受到了技术变革的影响而萎缩, 这使得比起其他媒体BBC做得更大。 同时BBC有不断增加的数字电视频道和电台, 这是BBC自身的成长。
问答题 What difficulties is the BBC confronted with, according to the passage?
【正确答案】The BBC’ s share of British viewing time has dropped and its bloated management has caused problems.
【答案解析】根据题意定位至文章三、 四段。 第三段提到英国人的注意力已经转向了其他娱乐, 使得BBC的收视率下降。 第四段提到BBC的规模也为自身造成麻烦——臃肿的管理层使得高层不了解低层并扼杀了创造力。
问答题 What is the purpose of the author mentioning "Downton Abbeys and other big stories in paragraph four?
【正确答案】By mentioning these examples, the author wants to show the decline of ability and creativity of the BBC.
【答案解析】该段开头说道BBC的规模导致了管理和创造力方面的问题, 接着便举了《唐顿庄园》 的例子, 说明BBC的创造力不足, 很少能拍出世界闻名的剧集。 后文提到近期的一些大事件也是由一些濒临破产的报纸揭露的, 而不是BBC这样的大媒体, 从而可推断该例子是用于论证BBC规模庞大带来的能力不足。
问答题 What suggestions have been put forward in the passage to address the current situation of the BBC?
【正确答案】The radical solution is to get rid of a lot of the BBC, but the more realistic and useful way is to split the job of director-general into those of chief executive and editor-in-chief.
【答案解析】根据题意定位至文章第五段。 该段提到了解决问题的激进方式——大量削减BBC的业务。 但是激进方式不太可行, 因此文章第七段给出了更有用的方法——将理事长的工作拆分给董事长和总编辑。
问答题 What is the main idea of the passage?
【正确答案】The main idea is to point out the current problems the BBC is facing and provide the solutions.
【答案解析】本文前两段首先介绍了BBC的现状, 然后话锋一转, 开始点明BBC所面临的一些问题, 后提供了解决问题的措施。 文章末尾又一次点明“不进行改革的组织会逐渐灭亡。 BBC需要进行变革” 。 因此本文主要围绕着BBC的现有问题及解决方案展开讨论。