新聞媒體也將迎來(lái)互動(dòng)敘事時(shí)代？

AUSTIN, Tex. — A fascinating story emerged about Netflix last week.

德克薩斯州奧斯丁——上周，一個(gè)有關(guān)Netflix的引人入勝的故事浮出水面。

The Daily Mail reported that the streaming television service was developing new interactive technology allowing viewers to direct the plots of certain television shows, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure style.

據(jù)《每日郵報(bào)》(The Daily Mail)報(bào)道，這家流媒體電視服務(wù)公司正在開(kāi)發(fā)一種新的互動(dòng)技術(shù)，可以讓觀眾決定某些電視節(jié)目的情節(jié)，就像“驚險(xiǎn)岔路口”(Choose Your Own Adventure)那樣。

The company later told me that the experiment was focused on children’s programming, more as a developmental learning tool than as some new twist on the modern media sphere’s rush to give you exactly what you want when you want it.

這家公司后來(lái)告訴我，這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)著重于兒童節(jié)目，更多是作為一種開(kāi)發(fā)中的學(xué)習(xí)工具，而非把現(xiàn)代媒體爭(zhēng)相實(shí)現(xiàn)的目標(biāo)——想要什么就給你什么——變出了點(diǎn)新花樣。

No matter how far the experiment goes, Netflix is again in step with the national zeitgeist. After all, there are algorithms for streaming music services like Spotify, for Facebook’s news feed and for Netflix’s own program menu, working to deliver just what you like while filtering out whatever might turn you off and send you away — the sorts of data-driven honey traps that are all the talk at the South by Southwest Interactive Festival going on here through this week. So why not extend the idea to the plots of your favorite shows?

不管這項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)馨l(fā)展到什么程度，Netflix都又一次跟上了時(shí)代的步伐。畢竟，Spotify等流媒體音樂(lè)服務(wù)、Facebook的新聞?dòng)嗛喎?wù)，以及Netfix自己的節(jié)目單都有算法致力于提供準(zhǔn)確符合你的喜好的東西，同時(shí)過(guò)濾掉任何可能會(huì)讓你厭煩或想要離開(kāi)的內(nèi)容，也就是本周正在這里舉行的西南偏南互動(dòng)媒體節(jié)(South by Southwest Interactive Festival)上都在談?wù)摰哪欠N數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)的甜蜜陷阱。所以為什么不把這種自己決定情節(jié)的點(diǎn)子，也延伸到你最喜歡的電視節(jié)目中呢?

Allow me to direct you to the real-world, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure news media misadventure of the past week, which I’ll call “POTUS45, Episode 6: The Presidential Wiretap That (A) Was, (B) Wasn’t, (C) Was Because He’s a Russian Agent and Oh, Sister, Is He in Trouble.”

請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我?guī)ьI(lǐng)你看看真實(shí)世界的“驚險(xiǎn)岔路口”式新聞媒體在上周的不幸遭遇，我稱(chēng)之為《45屆總統(tǒng)》(POTUS45)第6集：總統(tǒng)竊聽(tīng)事件(A)是真的，(B)不是真的，(C)是真的，因?yàn)樗且幻砹_斯特工，哎呀，姐們，他可倒大霉了

It started with President Trump’s Twitter posts accusing former President Barack Obama of having wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower. Game on.

這起事件始于特朗普總統(tǒng)發(fā)推文指控美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)貝拉克·奧巴馬(Barack Obama)竊聽(tīng)了他在特朗普大廈的電話。游戲開(kāi)始。

If you were inclined to believe that Mr. Obama did what Mr. Trump said he did — indeed, if you wanted to believe it — you probably would have tuned into “Fox & Friends” that Sunday morning for Adventure A.

如果你傾向于相信奧巴馬做了特朗普所說(shuō)的事——確切講，如果你想相信是那么回事——你可能在那個(gè)周日上午收看過(guò)《福克斯和朋友們》(Fox & Friends)節(jié)目，即選項(xiàng)A。

There, you would have seen the radio host Mark Levin, whose show was credited with helping to spur Mr. Trump’s accusations, laying out the case for Mr. Trump, declaring, “This is about the Obama administration’s spying.”

在那里，你會(huì)看到節(jié)目主持人馬克·萊文(Mark Levin)——他的節(jié)目被認(rèn)為是促使特朗普提出這項(xiàng)指控的原因之一——替特朗普闡明案情，宣稱(chēng)“這事關(guān)奧巴馬政府的間諜行動(dòng)”。

The proof, you would have heard him say, was already out there in the mainstream media — what with a report on the website Heat Street saying that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had secured a warrant to investigate ties between people in Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, and articles in The New York Times, in The Washington Post and elsewhere about intelligence linking people in Mr. Trump’s campaign to Russia, some of it from wiretaps.

你會(huì)聽(tīng)到他說(shuō)，證據(jù)早就出現(xiàn)在主流媒體的報(bào)道里了——因?yàn)闊峤?Heat Street)網(wǎng)站上的一篇報(bào)道說(shuō)聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局(Federal Bureau of Investigation)獲得了對(duì)特朗普競(jìng)選團(tuán)隊(duì)成員與俄羅斯的關(guān)系進(jìn)行調(diào)查的授權(quán)，還有《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》、《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(The Washington Post)等媒體報(bào)道了將特朗普?qǐng)F(tuán)隊(duì)成員與俄羅斯之間建立關(guān)聯(lián)的情報(bào)，有些是來(lái)自竊聽(tīng)。

“These are police state tactics!” Mr. Levin would tell you.

“這些是警察國(guó)家的手段!”萊文會(huì)告訴你。

Sure, you would have picked up static from other sources that made some of this seem ridiculous. But that stuff is for the followers of Adventure B, relying on fact-based journalism from seasoned reporters with deep contacts and established (and, yes, sometimes imperfect) protocols for fact-checking — all of which the Adventure A people view with deep suspicion that the president is only too happy to stir.

當(dāng)然，你已經(jīng)從其他地方看到一些批評(píng)，讓這些言論看起來(lái)十分可笑。但那些東西是給選B的人看的，他們信賴(lài)有深厚人脈、有成熟的事實(shí)核查程序(是的，有時(shí)候并不完美)、有豐富經(jīng)驗(yàn)的記者所做的基于事實(shí)的新聞報(bào)道——選A的人對(duì)所有這些都深表懷疑，現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)十分樂(lè)于激發(fā)這種情緒。

If you were among the Adventure B folk, maybe you saw James Clapper Jr., the former national security director, tell Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” that Sunday that the F.B.I. had not secured a FISA warrant to spy on Mr. Trump’s aides.

如果你是選B的人，或許已經(jīng)看到美國(guó)前任國(guó)家情報(bào)總監(jiān)小詹姆斯·R·克拉珀(James Clapper Jr.)周日在《會(huì)見(jiàn)媒體》(Meet the Press)節(jié)目上告訴查克·托德(Chuck Todd)，聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局并沒(méi)有獲得可以讓他們監(jiān)聽(tīng)特朗普助手的外國(guó)情報(bào)監(jiān)聽(tīng)法(FISA)授權(quán)令。

You probably would have seen the news, first reported by The Times, that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had asked the Justice Department to deny Mr. Trump’s charge (to no avail), and the viral video of George Stephanopoulos of ABC News telling a presidential aide, “That’s false,” as she tried to reprise the Adventure A argument that mainstream news reports backed Mr. Trump’s wiretap accusation.

你可能會(huì)看到時(shí)報(bào)率先報(bào)道的那則消息，即聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局局長(zhǎng)詹姆斯·B·科米(James B. Comey)要求司法部駁斥特朗普的指控(結(jié)果無(wú)濟(jì)于事)，會(huì)看到一段廣為傳播的視頻顯示，當(dāng)總統(tǒng)的一名助手試圖重復(fù)選項(xiàng)A中的觀點(diǎn)——即主流新聞媒體的報(bào)道證實(shí)了特朗普的竊聽(tīng)指控，ABC新聞?lì)l道(ABC News)的喬治·斯蒂芬諾普洛斯(George Stephanopoulos)對(duì)她說(shuō)，“那是假的。”

You would have seen PolitiFact’s point-by-point rebuttal of the same argument — and, finally, a week later, reports about how evidence for Mr. Trump’s charge still had yet to surface.

你會(huì)看到PolitiFact網(wǎng)站對(duì)那一論調(diào)逐字逐句的反駁，以及在一周之后，最終看到有關(guān)支持特朗普指控的證據(jù)依然沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)的報(bào)道。

Or, lastly, were you an Adventure C kind of person? If so, you couldn’t get enough about how Mr. Trump’s wiretap allegation and the Russian connections could lead to his impeachment (MSNBC, The Independent, Maxine Waters), and your Facebook feed probably included the learnprogress.org headline “The F.B.I. Is Now Officially CRIMINALLY Investigating Donald J. Trump.” (Nothing in the posting it links to shows evidence for any such thing.)

最后一點(diǎn)，你是選擇C那種人嗎?如果是的話，你會(huì)喜歡看到有關(guān)特朗普的竊聽(tīng)指控和與俄羅斯的關(guān)聯(lián)會(huì)如何導(dǎo)致他被彈劾(MSNBC頻道、《獨(dú)立報(bào)》(The Independent)、馬克辛·沃特斯[Maxine Waters])的信息，你在Facebook的訂閱信息可能會(huì)包括learnprogress.org網(wǎng)站的頭條新聞《FBI現(xiàn)在正式對(duì)唐納德·J·特朗普展開(kāi)刑事調(diào)查》(The F.B.I. Is Now Officially CRIMINALLY Investigating Donald J. Trump)。(其中鏈接的帖子沒(méi)有提供任何可以證實(shí)這一消息的證據(jù)。)

As Mr. Stephanopoulos told me when we spoke by phone over the weekend, the trend may have been heading this way for a while — you don’t need an algorithmic feed to turn on Fox News or to catch Rush Limbaugh. But in the era of the curated digital news stream, the choose-your-news phenomenon has “ended up in a whole new place,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said.

就像斯特凡諾普洛斯上周末在電話中告訴我的，這種趨勢(shì)已經(jīng)持續(xù)一段時(shí)間了——打開(kāi)?？怂剐侣?lì)l道或收聽(tīng)拉什·林博(Rush Limbaugh)的節(jié)目是不需要算法推薦的。但他表示，在數(shù)字信息流定制化的時(shí)代，“定制新聞”熱潮“最終落入了意想不到的境地”。

It’s easy to overdo it, he noted, given that no specially tailored plotline can fully tune out the contradicting details of another one. “Filters do have to contend with each other in some way, too,” he said.

他認(rèn)為這很容易做過(guò)頭，因?yàn)闆](méi)什么量身定制的情節(jié)主線能完全去除另一條情節(jié)線中與之矛盾的細(xì)節(jié)。“過(guò)濾器之間也會(huì)有某種沖突，”他說(shuō)。

Really, arguments between adherents of the different adventure plots are the stuff of cable news programming, with each narrative vying for supremacy in debates that too often become arguments over established facts that should be indisputable.

確實(shí)，不同的探險(xiǎn)情節(jié)的追隨者之間的爭(zhēng)論成了有線電視臺(tái)節(jié)目的內(nèi)容，每種敘事邏輯都在辯論中竭力爭(zhēng)奪主導(dǎo)地位，使得這些辯論往往成為就本應(yīng)該無(wú)可爭(zhēng)議的既成事實(shí)展開(kāi)的爭(zhēng)論。

Because, after all, one of the plots we’re talking about here is of the sort that democracy depends on — that would be Adventure B, the one based on established facts that exist in the real world — and the others are of the sort that threatens to undermine any shared sense of truth while driving us into our corners.

因?yàn)?，畢竟我們這里談到的其中一條情節(jié)主線是民主制度賴(lài)以生存的——那應(yīng)該是選項(xiàng)B，也就是基于在真實(shí)世界存在的、確定的事實(shí)形成的版本——而其他的選項(xiàng)會(huì)破壞我們共同對(duì)真相的認(rèn)知，促使我們躲在各自的角落不出來(lái)。