友情博客

在PW看到一篇转载的文章，一看标题，俺就知道是俺的阿紫姐姐写的。果然！

哈，紫马上就要回国袅～～～开心，开心，开心100！
一晃，一别已经1年。俺和另一猪头一起去水煮鱼见她的最后一面还历历在目。回来的车上，俺一直泫然状，另一猪头则悲悯地望着俺，哈哈，这情景想起来真是好好笑～～～当时，令俺欣慰的是，虽然紫离去，还好猪头在。没料得如今，紫回来了，猪头却已走而且不再回来。真是世事难料噢～～～

附紫的采访，学习学习：
. What’s your situation currently? Did you get any punishment?
你目前情况怎样？是否受到惩罚？

A. No. “The answer is no we did not” “The editors looked at what we had done, and looked at the emails that we had sent to each other, looked at the notes we had made of our interview and found that we had behaved, so there was no punishment”
不，我的答案是我们都没有受到惩罚。编辑们了解我们做了什么，他们检查了我们两位作者相互之间通信的电子邮件，检查了我们为采访做的笔记，对我们的行为有了结论，因此我们没受到处分。所以，没有人被惩罚。

Q. Heard that Isikoff submitted his resignation.
听说伊斯科夫递交过辞呈。

A. “To my knowledge he’s not resigning”
据我所知他没有辞职。
Q. did you?
那么你呢？
A. “ I did not “
我也没有。

Q. Is anyone taking responsibility for this at News Week?
那么《新闻周刊》是否有人对此次事件负责？

A. “Big disasters”, Like an aircraft crash! Not when one thing goes wrong, but when five or six things go wrong one after the other and that was true in this case. 5 or 6 things went wrong and that was the disaster. So there is no one person who is responsible for the mistake, responsible for the error. It was a group of us. It was Isikoff, it was myself, it was the bureau chief, it was the editor up in New York who accepted it, it was the senior editors who signed off on it. It was a whole chain of events.”
这是场巨大的灾难！像飞机坠毁一样的大灾难！不是一件事情弄砸了，而是五六件事情，一件套一件地搞砸了，引发了一场大灾难。所以，该为这次错误负责的人，并不是一个人，而是一个团队，应该是伊斯科夫，应该是我，应该是分社的负责人，应该是在纽约接受这篇稿件的编辑，应该是签发这篇稿件的高级编辑。这些因素像链条一样一环扣一环。

Q. This case, do you think any change will come out inside Newsweek?
通过这件事，你认为会给《新闻周刊》内部带来改变吗？

A. “Oh yeah, sure. There are new rules about the use of sources and you can read them on the Newsweek website … and I’m sure there will be other procedural changes to avoid it”
哦，当然。你可以在《新闻周刊》的网站上看到，好几条关于引用消息来源的新规定已经出台。我确信还会有其他流程上的改变，以避免类似问题再次发生。

Q why did the source change his position?
你们的“秘密消息来源”为何改变了说法？

A. “I don’t know.”
我不清楚。

Q. I heard source has long-term relationship with you.
据说他跟你们有长期合作关系。

A. Not with me, but with Isikoff
不是跟我，是跟伊斯科夫。

Q.Maybe under pressure?
或许是基于压力？

A. “I do not know, you’re asking me to speculate. He said he’d seen something in a particular document which …he said he rebred seeing” “but he could not be sure if it was part of command investigation”
我不知道，你在要求我进行猜测。他说他在一份特别文件中看见过，他说他反复看见过。但现在他不能确认那是否军方调查报告的一部分。

Q. In your email you said that “for obvious reasons and I declined most requests for comment”, Why did you decline to have someone to interview you?
你曾在邮件中告诉我，“基于显而易见的原因，我拒绝了绝大多媒体的采访要求”，你为什么这么做？是有什么内部禁令吗？

A. “We haven’t been prohibited from talking to people. But it has been sensible that the comments for the American media come from the senior people. You happened to ask me directly that it wasn’t for an American publication, so I decided to help you.”
《新闻周刊》并没有阻止对外发言，但是，此时此刻向美国媒体对此事作评价相当敏感。你恰好直接找到了我，而且不是美国媒体，加之我对你发来的邮件感兴趣（注：这句话见BARRY给我的第一封邮件），所以我愿意帮助你，跟你谈谈这件事。

Q. Do you think this will bring any consequence to Newsweek?
你认为此事给新闻周刊带来了什么后果？

A. “Clearly it’s very damaging to Newsweek because you know, you’re not supposed to get things wrong” “and it was … damaging in general .. credibility”
“I think its particularly damaging to Newsweek’s relationship to the military, obviously, because they were put at risk by this story .. ..No American soldier was injured or killed, thankfully … but the military is pretty angry the pentagon is pretty angry” “We’ll have to live through them, but I presume we will”

很显然，事件对《新闻周刊》的伤害很大，你知道，没人希望会有这样一个糟糕的结果。总的来说，这对我们的公信力造成了伤害。
我认为，《新闻周刊》与军方的关系很明显受到了巨大伤害，他们身处危险地区，而这篇文章……谢天谢地，没有美国士兵因此受伤或者被杀，但军方很生气，五角大楼很生气。我们必须面对这一切。



Q: I am very interested in the White House reaction. What do you think about it?
我非常感兴趣白宫对此事的反应，你怎么看？

A. “I think that the white house was taken by surprise by the riots, I think the white house was cross, angry with the defense department because the defense department had not warned the white house of the story. I think the state department by the way was also angry because the defense department had not warned them”
我想白宫被突如其来的穆斯林骚乱给吓了一跳。白宫之所以恼怒，主要是因为国防部没有给通告给他们这篇报道中所说的情况，国务院大发雷霆也基于此。

“I think they (the white house) were very obviously angry at Newsweek because they…..and then many journalists have said the white house saw this as an opportunity to say something about the American media, because the White House does not particularly like the American media. I think they saw this as an opportunity to say some things about the American media which they cannot normally say. Now whether there were other notions(or issues?) you have read … by other journalists about what other issues, but that’s speculation and I can’t answer for that”
当然，恼怒的白宫对《新闻周刊》批评也毫不留情。许多记者认为，白宫是抓住机会借题发挥，因为它向来不喜欢美国媒体。我同意他们所说的：白宫在《新闻周刊》事件中说了不少他们平时不便于说的话。至于你现在可能读到其他记者对此事的一些看法，我不能随便推测并做出评价。

Q. So in the future Newsweek will continue to investigate this case, about Koran abuse?
那么，《新闻周刊》会继续调查亵渎《可兰经》的事件吗？

A. Latest issue “The latest issue which lays out what we knew and what we were told about the Koran piece. Will we do more than that? No, I don’t think so. Will we go on inquiring into the treatment of prisoners and detainees by US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and Guantanamo, the answer is yes, we will.”
在我们最新一期杂志中，已经把我们调查的和被告知的关于亵渎《古兰经》的情况都写出来了。我们能知道得比那更多吗？不，我不这样认为。我们会继续调查被美军关押在阿富汗、伊拉克和关塔那摩的囚犯们的待遇吗？答案是——是的，我们会。