特朗普等民粹主義者的崛起讓記者們困惑
When Spotlight won the Oscar for best picture, every print journalist cheered. But the celebration of brave Boston Globe reporters investigating paedophile priests flatters our dying industry. Most people distrust us and have stopped buying our products. Populists in particular, from Marine Le Pen to Donald Trump, make a living out of insulting us.
《聚焦》(Spotlight)拿下奧斯卡最佳影片時，每一位紙媒記者都歡呼雀躍。但對那些調查戀童癖神父的勇敢的《波士頓環球報》(Boston Globe)記者的頌揚，擡舉了我們這個行將就木的行業。大多數人並不信任我們，也不再購買我們的產品。尤其是，從馬琳•勒龐(Marine Le Pen)到唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的民粹主義者，都靠侮辱我們謀生。
Worse, they have a point. We are flummoxed by their rise, in large part because we rarely report from the places — mostly exurbs and poor provincial towns — where their voters live. Journalists in western countries (including me) tend to huddle in a few rich big cities, speaking to people like ourselves. No wonder the people we exclude are angry.
更糟糕的是，他們說得有道理。這些民粹主義者的崛起讓我們困惑，很大程度上這是因爲我們很少去他們的支持者所生活的地方做報道——那些地方大多是遠郊地區和貧困的外省城鎮。西方國家的記者（包括我自己在內）往往都擠在少數幾個富裕的大城市裏，與像我們一樣的人說話。難怪被我們排除在外的人很憤怒。
When a clever ruling class encounters popular anger, it knows what to do: change a little so that everything can stay the same. The classic case is 19th-century Britain: toffs avoided revolution and clung on to power by gradually letting more ordinary people vote. In today’s populist moment, the media — like every establishment group — need to change. Journalists should spread into the provinces and listen to ordinary people.
聰明的統治階級知道在遭遇民衆的憤怒情緒時該做什麼：稍微改變一點點，從而讓一切能夠保持不變。一個經典案例是19世紀的英國：通過逐漸讓更多普通人獲得投票權，上層階級避免了革命，握緊了權力。而面對當今民粹主義的崛起，媒體就像每一個統治羣體一樣，需要改變。記者應該分散到外省各處，聽一聽普通人的聲音。
National media have probably always over-covered the metropolis. When I began reading British newspapers as a teenager in London, I assumed I was reading local London editions, because almost all the news was about London (north of the river). The first time I went somewhere else in Britain and bought a national newspaper, I realised: it is a London paper. It’s just called a national newspaper.
全國性媒體對大都會的報道很可能一直都太多了。當我還是一個倫敦少年時，我開始閱讀英國報紙，當時我以爲我讀的是倫敦的地方報紙，因爲幾乎所有新聞都和（泰晤士河以北的）倫敦有關。第一次去了倫敦以外的英國，買了一份全國性報紙以後，我才意識到：這就是一份倫敦的地方報紙，只是叫做全國性報紙而已。
Until the early 21st century, western countries had strong local newspapers too, from the Boston Globe to the Yorkshire Evening Post. The provinces got covered.
直到21世紀初，西方國家才擁有了強大的地方報紙，包括《波士頓環球報》和《約克郡晚間郵報》(Yorkshire Evening Post)。外省的新聞得到了報道。
Then the internet destroyed local papers. Even the Globe’s newsroom has shrunk, while its circulation has plummeted. Today, most remaining journalists live in metropolitan enclaves such as Brooklyn, north London and central Paris, and look like the elites they cover. “Elitist Britain”, the 2014 report of a government-appointed commission, found that 54 of the country’s “top 100 media professionals” attended private schools. Journalists, politicians, senior civil servants and business people meet as classmates, then marry each other or become neighbours.
然後互聯網摧毀了地方報紙。即使是《波士頓環球報》的新聞編輯室都減員了，其發行量也一落千丈。今天，大多數尚存的記者生活在布魯克林、倫敦北部和巴黎中部等代表正宗大都市的區，他們看起來就像他們所報道的精英一樣。一個政府委任的委員會在2014年發佈的調查報告《精英主義英國？》(Elitist Britain?)發現，英國“前100名專業媒體人”中有54名曾就讀私立學校。記者、政界人士、高級公務員和商界人士同窗求學、結爲連理或者比鄰而居。
Admittedly, we need lots of journalists in capital cities, because that’s where power is. However, there are now too many. The result is “inside the Beltway” reporting that fixates on Boris Johnson’s position on Brexit instead of venturing into the hinterland to see what voters think. It’s worse in France: Le Monde newspaper often reads like a Versailles palace gazette circa 1788, chronicling which courtiers are currently in favour. Here are three headlines from adjoining pages in the February 21 edition: “How Montebourg [former economics minister] is preparing his return”, “In the Republican Party, two departures that harm Nicolas Sarkozy”, and “François Hollande: I could be a candidate, I could not be a candidate.”
誠然，首都需要大量記者，因爲首都是權力的中心。然而，現在首都的記者太多了。結果是，只有聚焦倫敦市長鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)對英國退歐問題立場的“首都內”報道，而沒有深入外省探究選民們在想什麼的報道。法國的情況更加糟糕：《世界報》(Le Monde)往往讀起來就像是1788年左右的凡爾賽宮報紙，記載着哪位侍臣正得寵。以下是2月21日的《世界報》相鄰幾版的三條標題：“阿諾•蒙特布爾(Arnaud Montebourg)（前經濟部長）如何爲歸來做準備”、“法國共和黨(Republican Party)內：兩人的離開傷害尼古拉•薩科齊(Nicolas Sarkozy)”以及“弗朗索瓦•奧朗德(François Hollande)：我可以是個候選人，我不可以是個候選人”。
I’m a metropolitan animal, as guilty as my peers. It’s more agreeable interviewing someone in a five-star hotel lobby an easy subway ride from home than in a freezing community centre in some rundown small town. But the rundown small town is closer to the average national experience.
我也是個大都會人，和我的同行一樣有罪。在乘地鐵可以輕鬆抵達的同城五星級酒店的大堂裏做採訪，自然比去某個破敗的小鎮，在冰冷刺骨的小鎮社區中心裏做採訪更舒服。但破敗的小鎮更接近全國的平均體驗。
Once every four years, during the US primaries, the American media discover the heartland. Evan Osnos, covering the 2016 race for The New Yorker, marvels: “Twenty-four hours spent on the ground in South Dakota is worth about six weeks in your office in Washington.” He says you learn more listening to “all these people out there”.
每隔四年，在美國大選初選的時候，美國媒體會“發現”美國的中部地區。爲《紐約客》(The New Yorker)報道2016年大選的歐逸文(Evan Osnos)驚歎：“在南達科他州土地上度過24小時，抵得過在華盛頓的辦公室裏待上大約6個星期。”他說，聽一聽“那裏的所有人”所說的東西能讓你學到更多。
The obvious solution is to station more journalists “out there”. That would save reporters the bother of dashing around the metropolis covering what the historian Daniel Boorstin called “manufactured pseudo-events”, such as lying press conferences that, anyway, are now streamed online. It would end the absurdity of having the American commentariat take the nation’s pulse from Brooklyn. It would show people “out there” that the media know they exist. Best of all, a journalist moving from an overpriced metropolis to the provinces will get the sort of de facto pay rise that’s now almost unheard of in our industry. (I’m still not volunteering.)
顯而易見的解決辦法是在“那裏”派駐更多記者。這就省得記者在大都會中東奔西跑，報道一些歷史學家丹尼爾•布爾斯廷(Daniel Boorstin)所說的“製造出來的僞事件”（比如一些儘管謊言連篇、如今卻在線播放的新聞發佈會）了。這會終結美國評論家依據布魯克林來爲全國把脈的荒謬事。這會向“那裏”的人們傳達，媒體知道他們的存在。尤其是，一個從物價過高的大都會搬到外省的記者，會享受到實際上的漲薪——在我們這個行業漲薪這種事現在基本已經聞所未聞了。（但我依然不會自告奮勇地去外地。）
Sending educated young people to the countryside may sound like a Maoist re-education campaign but the media need a shake-up. Just 43 per cent of Europeans now trust the written press, reports the European Commission. Four in 10 Americans, an all-time low, have “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust in mass media, say pollsters Gallup. Trump knows exactly what he is doing when he attacks journalists as well as politicians. Think of his misogynistic onslaught on Fox presenter Megyn Kelly, or his threat on Monday to change the laws “so that the press has to be honest”.
把受過教育的年輕人派往鄉村，聽起來可能像是毛式“再教育”運動，但媒體需要一次重大調整。根據歐盟委員會(European Commission)的報告，現在僅有43%的人信任紙媒。民調公司蓋洛普(Gallup)表示，每10個美國人中只有4個人“非常”或者“比較”信任大衆媒體，這個比例處於歷史低點。特朗普在攻擊記者和其他政治人士時完全清楚自己在做什麼。想想他對福克斯電視臺的女主持人梅金•凱利(Megyn Kelly)帶着仇視女性意味的抨擊，或者他在不久前的那個週一發出的威脅——要更改法律，“讓媒體不得不誠實”。
Every section of the western establishment now has to reach out to the downtrodden without simply aping Trumpist racism. Future political hopefuls might learn from Hillary Clinton’s travails and not get into bed with banks. Harvard might abolish tuition fees. Banks might accept a little more regulation. A big establishment push, and perhaps it won’t be 1789 again.
西方統治集團的每個組成部分現在都必須向受壓迫者伸出手，但不應該一味模仿特朗普式的種族主義。未來的政治候選人應該從希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)的痛苦經歷中吸取教訓，不要和銀行交往過密。哈佛或許能免收學費。銀行或許能受到稍微多一點的監管。如果統治集團能向前邁出一大步，或許我們能夠避免再來一場法國大革命。
