[Prompt: If you were given five minutes of airtime on national television, what would you talk about? Why?]

“This message has been brought to you by...” Millions of Americans hear this commercial announcement emanating from their televisions each day, yet few consider the ramifications of the words. If granted five minutes of national airtime, I would urge the American public to explore the implications of the commercialization of the media. Indeed, I would encourage individuals to research and question issues rather than relying primarily on television and other mass media for information.

Many Americans erroneously believe that the presence of the First Amendment ensures complete freedom of the press. They consider the news media to arise from the people with the intent of serving the people. In modern times, however, money has emerged as a new way of controlling information. Advertisers, network owners and stockholders all function to restrict free speech. A commercial message involves stakeholders, with vested interests, providing essential financial backing to the media conglomerate. For example, a network or newspaper owner with a stake in or ties to a large industry may de-emphasize or omit information damaging to the industry.
Issues spanning the environment, war, politics, business, education, and religion all feature at least two sides of the story. Often, the journalists presenting information inflect their personal opinions into the story. Although these unbalanced opinions do not overtly dominate every article or news broadcast, a bias or a certain slant could inevitably surface.

Given the difficulty of obtaining a completely unaltered account, I would further encourage Americans who watch political opinion shows to research the issues before forming a firm opinion, thus preventing the “experts” from passing on their opinions like hand-me-downs. Americans should investigate the literature and facts relating to the issues they consider important. This advice becomes increasingly relevant during elections, when politicians undertake massive efforts to spin public ideals. Accordingly, television advertisements and political billboards must receive intense scrutiny. A preferable avenue of determining which candidate merits one’s vote involves researching his or her stance on issues of personal importance.

The amount of resources and market research utilized to construct attention-garnering political advertisements remains astounding. Hence, more money allows more advertisement. Moreover, people who use their vast resources to acquire time on television do so to advocate their side of an issue. An educated public, however, cannot be swayed by propaganda or attention-grabbing advertisements, but rather will make informed decisions. My message aspires to encourage Americans to limit the impact of propaganda by understanding the dynamics of the media and developing both the capacity to think critically and the desire to research one's opinions.

點評：

文章結構：

文章結構比較普通，段落的劃分沒有一個明確的界限，似乎前后兩段在內容上也是承接的關系，但是作者就是硬要把它們分開，導致整篇文章分段較多，這樣每個段落在內容上就顯得很瑣碎，段與段之間沒有一個感情的升華，這樣就給人一種評述，感情色彩不濃的感覺。

文章內容：

這篇文章沒有過多地在自己的學術背景上大費周章，而是向讀者們傳達了一條非常重要的信息。當人們都理所當然地認為大眾媒體為言論的自由開辟了一條新路，當人們都不假思索地依賴大眾媒體來獲得外部信息的時候，作者提出了對從大眾媒體所獲得的信息要有批判精神，并指出了媒體報道帶有一定的失真性和功利性，因此人們必須在接收信息之前先對信息進行判斷，形成自主思維以免受到過多的外部輿論所影響。

文章并沒有過多華麗的詞藻，也沒有像平常的一些文章那樣先擺出自己的優勢然后舉例說明最后做出總結，然而這篇文章卻能別出心裁，讓讀者留下一個深刻的印象。作者能跳出常規性思維，說別人所不能想，已經成功地做到了跳出留學申請本身來寫文書。相信讀者們看完這篇文章都有種恍然大悟和豁然開朗的感覺。

總體點評：

總的來說，這是一篇不錯的文書。這篇文書的出色之處在于作者所提出的觀點，其實一篇好的文書不在于其所運用的修辭手法、表達方式或者是結構布局之類的，最重要的是文章所展現出來的作者的思想，學校希望看到的申請人應該是一個有想法，有主見的學生，而不是一個只會玩文字游戲的作家。所以在你下筆之前，不妨好好的想一下你究竟是一個怎樣的人，和別人有什么不一樣以及你寫這篇文書的動機等等。

可借鑒要素：

此篇文章的選材比較新穎，另外形象的塑造也比較的鮮明，可以給人留下一個較深的印象。其實要判斷你寫的文書能不能給人留下較深的印象，你可以找人看一下你的文書，看完之后叫他們描述一下文書的主人公是一個怎樣的人，如果他們說不出來，那就證明你的文書還是畢竟普通，不能給人留下深印象。

譯文：

商業廣告

提示：如果給你5分鐘在全國電視節目上做開幕詞，你會說什么？為什么？

“這是由……為你呈送的信息。”每天數百萬的美國人都會在電視里聽到這句廣告詞，但是卻甚少人會去考慮這些廣告詞的衍生含義。如果給我五分鐘的廣告時間，我會催促美國人去重新思考這些商業廣告的隱含意義。當然，我會鼓勵每個人去研究和審度問題的本身而不是僅僅依賴電視和其他大眾媒體來獲得信息。

許多美國人都錯誤地認為第一修正案的出現能保證言論的絕對自由。他們認為新聞媒體是為人民服務的。然而，在當今這個物質化的時代，金錢成為了控制信息流通的一種新的手段。廣告客戶，互聯網供應商以及股東們都限制了言論的自由。一條商業廣告內含了股東們的既定利益，這些股東就是媒體們的贊助商。舉個例子來說，一個互聯網或報紙的供應商有股份或與某一行業有密切聯系，那么他就會有意掩蓋對這一行業不利的信息。

凡事都有兩面，環境、戰爭、政治、商業、教育和宗教之類的問題也一樣。經常地新聞記者們所報道的消息多含有他們的一些主觀意識。雖然這些帶有主觀意識的言論并不能支配每一篇文章或報道，但是多少的偏見還是會存在的。

由于意識到要獲得毫無偏見的信息是如此地困難，我更加要鼓勵那些觀看政壇節目的美國人在形成既定觀念之前一定要對事情做出研究判斷，以免受到那些自稱專家的人的言論所影響。

這些用來構筑引人注目的政治性廣告的資源和市場調查的數量是如此的巨大。因此，越有錢就能做越多的廣告。而且人們為了要鼓吹自己的意見不惜通過各種途徑來獲得那寶貴的廣告時間。然而一個受過高等教育的市民是不會那么輕易就被這些宣傳或廣告而左右思想的，相反會做出慎重的決定。我上面所說的意在鼓勵美國人要理解媒體的靈活性并培養質疑問題，調查研究問題的能力從而限制了這些宣傳的影響力。