传媒教育网
标题: 芮成钢同奥巴马争话语权 自称可以代表亚洲 [打印本页]
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:25
标题: 芮成钢同奥巴马争话语权 自称可以代表亚洲
@共识网：【视频为证】奥巴马说最后一个问题留给韩国媒体，芮成钢站起来说：“很对不起，我让你失望了，奥巴马总统。其实我是中国人，我想我可以代表亚洲”。当奥巴马提出按规则应该是韩国媒体来提问时，他死死抓住话筒说：如果韩国朋友都同意让我代替他们来提问呢？
http://player.ku6.com/refer/tog92CHajyi8GbMH/v.swf
芮成钢提问奥巴马 关注中国核心关切
http://player.56.com/v_NTY0ODUzOTc.swf
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:27
56网友：
成钢，你一般来说不要代表谁，这样不好，让人家所有的记者爆笑，你最好代表你自己或者充其量代表官方的央视，央视的广告费一年就是几百亿，这样你的腰包奖金肯定哗哗哗的，工资高高的，其实你应该多为失业的人，山区的孩子多走走吧你的笔挺的西服换换，换成一个普通人的面孔，这样你就是个好记者，不要拿着央视的牌子自我陶醉，总的来说你还是个好孩子
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:28
56网友 4小时前 说:
你没有看到完整的视频，央视的剪切了。完整的视频是奥巴马要让韩国人提问，结果成钢抢到话筒了，然后经过一系列的斗争，韩国记者不给力，不敢站起来问问题了，奥巴马那是一个尴尬啊....百度搜索完整视频看去
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:28
56网友 7小时前 说:
But I think I get to represent the entire Asia
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:29
http://www.56.com/u56/v_NTY0ODUzOTc.html
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:31
居然有人说芮成钢是好样的，无语了。
基本的次序都不懂。还配当记者。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:32
芮成钢站起来说：“很对不起，我让你失望了，奥巴马总统。其实我是中国人，我想我可以代表亚洲”
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:33
完全不懂或者装作不懂授权程序
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:34
http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=6556439
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:34
为什么这样的？应该有职业道德吗？不能以礼相待？？你那样会在整个世界出名？？？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:35
下面请韩国记者提问...
芮成钢举手并被点到.
芮成钢 ：很不幸我可能会让你失望，奥巴马总统，其实我是中国人.
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:36
动辄代表中国不知道谁授予他的代表权？就算CCAV你也只是一个D的喉舌，你掉表你的D还有情可原，你竟然代表亚洲不怕被别国耻笑吗？你能代表朝鲜？你能代表韩国？你能代表印度？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:37
你抢着提问就算了，还代表亚洲，还代表韩国人。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:39
维护宪法规定的公民权利，不揭人隐私，不诽谤他人，要通过合法和正当的手段获取新闻，尊重被采访者的声明和正当要求。
………………………………
芮成钢先生，你尊重被采访的奥巴马总统的声明和正当要求了吗？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:39
外国人一看就明白了:
不按大家制定好的游戏规则玩,人人可以看不起你!
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:39
采写和发表新闻要客观公正。不得从个人或小团体利益出发，利用自己掌握的舆论工具发泄私愤，或作不公正的报道。
…………
芮成钢先生，自己照照镜子吧，以后到国际上再不要丢中国大陆新闻工作者的脸了！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:41
这就叫习惯性硬代表。
国内习惯了代表老实的人民，代表国家，代表单位，
国外就想代表韩国，代表亚洲，
好像别人都是哑巴，都是弱智，不能发言，这就叫习惯性不在乎别人人权。
而且不懂得尊守规则，如果上面是胡主席，不，甚至是国内的部长，他就老老实实不敢嚣张了。
自认为在中央单位工作就了不起，一副小人得志嘴脸，丢人现眼。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:47
假冒插队
要是G20在中国开，韩国记者抢了芮记者的排位，说代表亚洲，要推行民主制度，不知道CCTV和FF怎么招呼他。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:49
被授权才有代表权，比如政府首脑在规定范围内可以代表政府，企业法人代表在规定范围内可以代表企业。政府在公共事务的规定范围可以代表国家，都有严格授权，未经授权的代表为非法代表。至于，提问题，显然非公共事务，纯属自己不懂向人请教，只能代表自己。这个记者还真是一个傻B，特别是作为媒体而言，客观公正，更不能代表别人，只能让别人根据事实做出自己的判断。不然你就不是媒体，而是媒体请的嘉宾或者媒体对象。从这样的素质看，那个什么台里的专业人员忒少了，垃圾忒多。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:49
关键时刻，咋没一个韩国记者站起来捏？
==============================
要么是修养好，要么是等摄像机记录历史，看你们这个民族在全世界出丑。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:50
关键时刻，咋没一个韩国记者站起来捏？
----------------------
奥巴马欲言又止，是在给芮傻逼难看，人家面对一个傻子，犯不上声色俱厉，
韩国记者才不会站起来给芮傻逼解围，让他都出会丑，人家看笑话
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:52
芮成钢好样的，有血性，有个性，有魄力
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:53
……视频网站删除大部分“不良”回复，只留下主旋律的和谐回复。很好很代表。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:53
下面请韩国记者提问...
芮成钢举手并被点到.
芮成钢 ：很不幸我可能会让你失望，奥巴马总统，其实我是中国人.
=========================================
呵呵，习惯了用欺骗和谎言获取想得到的东西。耍小聪明，自以为得计。
如果主持人说请西方记者提问，他也就老实了，这小子脸皮再厚，估计不敢代表西方吧!
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:56
1、挺好的，要有自信；
2、世界不能只有一种秩序；
3、发奋国强干什么？不就是对内争民权对外争族权。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:57
可以抢着提问，也可以一再提出自己的问题，但不能说一个普通的中国记者要代表亚洲，要代表韩国记者提问，芮记者没教养，没文化，没职业道德。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:58
这小子，在去年的G20峰会上问了奥巴马两个问题也是这种口气：一个代表中国一个代表全世界。
中国记者问：……来自中国中央电视台。既然全球领导人一直在讲要给发展中国家更多的话语权和投票权，那么我就想问两个问题而不是一个问题。第一个问题是代表中国问的……
奥巴马（笑了）答：我可能只选择其中一个问题回答。
中国记者：当然可以。
奥巴马：问两个问题总是有风险的。
中国记者：首先，您和中国国家主席在此次峰会上进行了成果颇丰的会谈。在克林顿时期，中美关系被克林顿概括为“建设性战略伙伴关系”。在小布什时期，（形容中美关系的）关键词是“利益攸关者”——当时的布什政府希望中国在国际事务中担当负责任的利益攸关者。您是否已经有了一个自己的关键词（来定位中美关系）呢？那当然不会是所谓的G2，对吧？我的第二个问题是代表全世界问的。虽然我们一直在讲全球性的对策，但政治本身却是非常本土化的，正如您刚才一直优先选择美国和英国的记者提问，不过这倒没什么。（奥巴马笑）
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:58
可以抢着提问，也可以一再提出自己的问题，但不能说一个普通的中国记者要代表亚洲，要代表韩国记者提问，芮记者没教养，没文化，没职业道德。
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
在此情况下,不能抢着提问!为什么,
肯定说好了,最后一个问题让韩国提问.奥都说了要公平. 游戏规则都说好了,你就破坏了游戏规则.
如果有意见,当时就应该提!
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 16:59
很显然，奥巴马说你的英语比我的普通话会好，本身就是一个讽刺啊，明明是请韩国记者提问，他却占了，呵呵，不过这种伎俩的确可以成为某些人炫耀的资本，这里随处可见,被人发现了还理直气壮。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:00
回复 27# 刘海明 的帖子
奥巴马：你问得问题都非常精彩。关于第一个问题，你的美国同行们可以告诉你，我最不善于用关键词或短语对事务进行概括了。所以（对于中美关系）我到目前为止还没有想到用什么精辟的短语来概括。不过你要是有什么建议，不妨告诉我。（笑）我会很高兴的使用它。
至于本土政治，你看，我是美国的总统，不是中国的主席，也不是日本首相，我不是参加峰会各位的首脑。我最直接的责任是让我们美国的人民生活得更好，这才是他们选举我到这个职位的目的。这也是前面几个问题中所提到的，为什么我来这里（参与20国峰会）能够帮助美国人民就业、购买住房、培养孩子上大学、实现我们所说的“美国梦”。衡量我的标准，就是要看我是否能有效地满足美国人民的需要和解决他们所关心的问题。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:00
芮成钢是一个不错的人，但这次他的习惯中明显带有党文化强行代表别人的做法。这是不对的。要一分为二。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:00
别把教养差当英雄气质。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:01
有本事你把原版拿到CCTV放一遍
为什么剪辑了？为什么不敢放原版？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:02
美国人70年代发射的什么“旅行者二号”上面，也代表地球人，搭载了一些送给外星人一些代表地球文化的礼品
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:02
芮成钢的这个做法极其缺乏职业道德，简直把中国媒体的脸都丢尽了
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:03
文章提交者：fengyun1975 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net
转至第211楼第 211 楼 中国网评 2010/11/13 11:48:54 的原帖：
美国人70年代发射的什么“旅行者二号”上面，也代表地球人，搭载了一些送给外星人一些代表地球文化的礼品
别扯淡了，人家旅行者二号带的唱片里面，一开始就是美国总统和联合国秘书长的贺词，联合国秘书长是干什么的，你不知道？后面有世界60种语言说的问候语，再说了，人家也没恬着脸说他们就“代表”全人类呀。
想当年，美国人在月球上立了块碑，碑文是“从地球来的人类于公元1969年7
月首次登上月球。我们为全人类的和平来到这里。”，人家才不想代表全人类呢，只有你们这些傻粪，代表这个代表那个，还以为能代出国门、代向世界呢。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:05
中国媒体不会说芮成钢丢脸，原因大家都清楚。但是中国的媒体人会说芮成钢丢脸，原因也很简单，我现在身边就坐着一个电视台的记者，他就认为芮成钢这样做非常丢脸，试想，如果每年全国人代会闭幕的记者会上有个美国的记者来这一出，愤愤该如何去骂！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:06
这么多新闻,就这个新闻是真的,我去韩国才回来,发现中国出的新闻和韩国出的完全两种概念!!!什么20国反对美国要求人民币升值,,,哈哈,做假新闻可以,但别做的太假!!!
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:06
只想知道，这是真的？还是演的？？？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:07
美国人70年代发射的什么“旅行者二号”上面，也代表地球人，搭载了一些送给外星人一些代表地球文化的礼品
==
我知道你这个对比不靠谱，但是反驳不出来。。。。。。。。。
================================================
呵呵，没学过逻辑学啊？这是人类与外星人的关系，他美国人冲出地球了，当然可以代表人类。但是在地球上，一个国家，只有总统、主席这样的人可以代表国家，一个单位，只有主要领导可以代表单位，你个人可以代表全家没人说什么。这就是道理。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:08
代表欲望太强烈
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:08
抢话筒是记者的天性，但瞎代表就只是痴拿国的特色了。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:09
很显然，奥巴马说你的英语比我的普通话会好，本身就是一个讽刺啊，明明是请韩国记者提问，他却占了，呵呵，
================================
对，奥巴马的意思就是，
你这样强行霸道并不是因为英语不好等原因造成的。
完全是因为你的素质差。
估计很多人没明白他说这话的意思，包括这个芮成刚。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:10
无场合，
没规矩，
瞎代表，
素质差，
很愚蠢！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:10
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:11
觉得丢脸的，都是奥巴马这一边的么，
这无可辩驳地说明：
丢脸的，
是Obama~
========
哈哈，我看到当芮成钢说'其实我是中国人'的时候，他后面的人很多在大笑，你如果认为这不丢脸，我只能说我们二人的脸皮构造的确存在明显差异
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:12
让礼仪之邦黯然失色。
==
又被”失色“了~~
=========
没见二楼这么鲜廉寡耻的。。。记者提问不遵守最基本的秩序这一恶习你都不以然
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:13
我看了看视频，对其表现的理解是：
这个芮成钢是因为尴尬而耍赖。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:14
抢着提问，对记者而言倒不是什么不可绕素的问题
但自称代表人家韩国和亚洲，
确实有些可笑了
===========
再假冒韩国记者举手，且理直气壮的面对同行的哄笑和被问者的质疑，就更可笑了。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:16
看完录像，我无地自容，因为我是亚洲人，是中国人。芮成钢是“代表狂”，一种病态而已，请大家原谅他。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:17
这wbd既无礼貌，又无教养。打断别人的说话，自称代表韩国，问韩记者同意还是不同意，口气像主宰者，之后竟直接代表亚洲，叫别人回答亚洲一个问题，肢体表现和传说中的牛二有异曲同工之妙。
黑总统的回答倒是极为有礼，明确拒绝了提问还称赞了提问者的语言能力。
这种角色，代表□□已是丢人现眼，还感代表亚洲，
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:18
芮成钢：芮成钢，来自中国中央电视台。既然全球的领导人一直在讲要给发展中国家更多的话语权和投票权，那么我就想问两个问题而不是一个问题。第一个问题是代表中国问的。
奥巴马：我可能只选择其中一个问题回答。
（奥巴马笑）
芮成钢：当然可以。
奥巴马：问两个问题总是有风险的。
芮成钢：首先，您和中国国家主席在此次峰会上进行了成果颇丰的会谈。在克林顿时期，中美关系被克林顿概括为“建设性战略伙伴关系”。在小布什时期，（形容中美关系的）关键词是“利益相关者”——当时的布什政府希望中国在国际事务中担当负责任的利益相关者。您是否已经有了一个自己的关键词（来定位中美关系）呢？那当然不会是所谓的G2，对吧？
我的第二个问题是代表全世界问的。虽然我们一直在讲全球性的对策，但政治本身却是非常本土化的，正如您刚才一直优先选择美国和英国的记者提问，不过这倒没有什么。
（奥巴马笑）
问题是，您如何确保糟糕的本土政治不会干扰或消极的影响到正确的国际经贸往来合作？谢谢，总统先生。
奥巴马：你问得问题都非常精彩。关于第一个问题，你的美国同行们可以告诉你，我最不善于用关键词或短语对事务进行概括了。所以（对于中美关系）我到目前为止还没有想到用什么精辟的短语来概括。不过你要是有什么建议，不妨告诉我。（笑）我会很高兴的使用它。
至于本土政治，你看，我是美国的总统，不是中国的主席，也不是日本首相，我不是参加峰会各位的首脑。我最直接的责任是让我们美国的人民生活得更好，这才是他们选举我到这个职位的目的。这也是前面几个问题中所提到的，为什么我来这里（参与20国峰会）能够帮助美国人民就业、购买住房、培养孩子上大学、实现我们所说的“美国梦”。衡量我的标准，就是要看我是否能有效地满足美国人民的需要和解决他们所关心的问题。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:19
总结一下，我觉得下次这种场合小芮有以下几点需要注意：
1 尊重发言人的意愿，他希望给韩国人机会，韩国记者就应有优先权。强迫发言人接受你的提问，是不礼貌的，如果还强词夺礼，就有点自大，喧宾夺主，绑架人的意思了。
2 尊重别国的意识形态与政治观点，不要将什么N个代表向世界推广。
3 学会幽默，学会以平等的身份交流。Obama这方面显然很有经验，当遇到小芮这种人时，能很快抓住他的特点（那几句英語比较流利），通过自贬，一给小芮台阶下，二活跃了尴尬气氛。只可惜他没想到遇到小芮这种主儿，不识趣。
4 问题。小芮的问题显然是精心储备好的，说的时候几乎没有中断。但是问题有些哆嗦，一大段，无非是想让总统先生解释他的不同解释而已。不如缩短问题，把更多时间留给总统来回答。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:20
前有北大学生的雷人提问，今有芮记者的极丑表演，我朝怎么尽派这样的丑类去丢人现眼啊，我作为中国人简直感到无地自容！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:20
http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/s ... /13/3095205_0.shtml
凤凰卫视11月12日《凤凰全球连线》节目播出“叶千荣：不明白芮成钢为何要求代替韩媒提问”，以下为文字实录：
任韧：在东京现场的叶千荣教授，您也看看刚刚这一段视频非常有意思，而且也其实特别听到了，林长盛先生关于说到特别要加强与韩国之间的同盟关系，您认为奥巴马的日本之行能够取得像韩国一样的成果吗？
叶千荣：这种气氛是会出现的，但是我想提到刚才这段图像的确很有意思，但是是否从这个奥巴马的这段话里，我们得出一个结论——奥巴马更重视美韩关系呢？美韩关系的确非常重视，但是应该让韩国记者来提问。这是一个国际场合，尤其是记者招待会上的一个礼仪和规则、顺序，我想奥巴马主要是基于这个考虑来说那番话的，同时我个人不太明白，为什么这位中国记者说我可以代表亚洲？同时也不太明白他为什么让他来代替韩国记者提问，因为来自两个不同的国家、不同的媒体。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:21
奥巴马讽刺这个芮傻逼英语很烂，仅仅比奥巴马的中文好一些
=============
不是,奥其实是透露出 你英文说的这么好 那完全听的懂 我刚刚是在说什么, 我说了是请韩国记者来提问 你来提什么?如果你说你没听清或者有歧义,那不存在这个说法 因为我已经表扬了你英文说的很好. 那么听清了我是请韩国记者来提问,你来提什么? 这不就是没素质乱插队的表现么.
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:22
Obama丢人鸟，
都结巴了~
语无伦次了~~
哇哈哈~
笑死俺了~
=============
在镜头前
外国小朋友问：你为什么要当国家主席呀
神色超自然的回答：因为全国人民选我当的呀
==============
后来这个报道永远的消失了.
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:22
整个事件中 最傻的是韩国记者了，扶不起的阿斗。
-
我倒是觉得韩国人在这次很我风度与涵养。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:22
人家老奥讲的是公平起见，在你这里有吗？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:23
我知道兰德公司对于中国人的评价的准确度了
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:23
关键时刻，咋没一个韩国记者站起来捏？
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
呵呵，韩国记者为什么要站起来呢？
如果我看见一个傻瓜在出丑，我当然愿意看他继续表演下去，难得在严肃的场合有这么一个插曲，每个人都会笑着看热闹，不会有人出来“煞风景”的。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:25
即使是拳击比赛，也要先施礼，也不能胡搅蛮缠！没有见过这么没有教养的。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:26
对外以主权和国情为借口强力抵抗国际主流意识，对内强力传播为国际所不齿的末流意识，并极力将其打扮成国内的主流意识，以此来稳定和谐数亿渔民。只要中国的渔民队伍不散，恶棍们总能找到对抗国际主流意识的借口。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:26
拿没礼貌当勇气，拿没规矩当自信，这就是挺芮成钢者的理由。芮成钢说大了是国民浮躁，说小了就是没家教！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:28
人家是记者，你是记者，美国总统先让韩国记者提问，就这样抢了别人的话语权，还代表了亚洲，人家记者素养好，就让你自大一把，你赢了吧，但作为一个记者还说出：
芮成钢站起来说：“很对不起，我让你失望了，奥巴马总统。其实我是中国人，我想我可以代表亚洲”
你能代表亚洲，能代表什么呢？明显是意淫~
确实出丑了~~~回去想想，人家要说话的权利你也要代表了人家，这是什么行为？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:29
你咋不说你洋主子刻意逃避问题呢？
做记者就是需要死缠硬打的精神，你没见过西方记者那股劲头？当然，换成是西方国家的记者，你们又跳出来叫嚣“自由精神”、“勇敢执着”……
=========
看来，你的小学语文老师责任很大。
北大那个大才子，一些基本的概念都搞不懂，就大言炎炎“中国人的书我是不读的。只有康德等人的书，我才有兴趣读。”
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:30
还记得沙祖康在国际宴会上撒酒疯的事情么？这位联合国副秘书长在国际舞台上的表演刚刚消停，中央台的芮成刚又出来代表亚洲卖弄英语兼带耍流氓了。这以后让中国人还怎么在国际上混？丢人呀！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:31
26秒处后面记者在笑
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:31
记者也会面对媒体。中国记者也在面对世界传媒。如果你要传达自己的声音，就必须用对方能理解和识别的话语体系来进行。如果你还是把境内媒体的方式套取过来，把政府和媒体等同起来，把奇怪的精英心态表现出来，你只会事倍功半、适得其反。道理再简单不过，你以为精彩绝伦的言辞和足以让对方抓耳挠腮的问题，可能在对方看来只是弱智、缺乏常识，并可以借题发挥给你上课。”此言可谓一语中的，在中国，媒体是政府主导下的，媒体人有时就充当政府发言人的角色，他们沿用的是官方的话语体系，扮演的是政府的“喉舌”和代理人，因此“我代表”就是稀松平常的事，尽管他们到国际舞台上也往往会“刹不住车”。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:32
这家伙确实行为有点无礼，他应该回头问一下有没韩国记者需要提问。但不算太出格，因为亚洲其他记者也没得到提问的机会。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:32
当他霸话筒抢答时，我觉得他有点缺教养；当他直言代表亚洲和韩国时，就觉得他有点无耻了。
因为他知道，奥巴马不会厉声问他：你是哪个单位的？你们领导叫什么？是哪个叫你来的？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:32
做记者就是需要死缠硬打的精神，你没见过西方记者那股劲头？当然，换成是西方国家的记者，你们又跳出来叫嚣“自由精神”、“勇敢执着”……
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
你的意思是说死缠硬打的记者就不需要遵守会议发言次序，不需要尊重主讲人，可以随意抢话筒，而且气壮山河地代表中国、五大洲和全世界？如果象你说的那样，还不如朝奥巴马直接扔只鞋过去。他要是真敢扔鞋的话，人们倒是会佩服他的勇气。可他现在的做法只能让人感到不齿！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:35
看了视频，没看到为什么起了争论。看到有人提到是因为奥巴马特意提出给韩国记者提问的机会，而芮记者举手后被点到起身“澄清”他是中国人，但可以代表亚洲。说点感觉吧：
1）芮冒名韩国记者举手似乎不妥。但他为什么这么做不清楚。是不是他屡次受到冷遇？如果不是，那他的举止就有违起码的礼仪了。如果是他屡次遭到冷遇，那么他不按常理出牌也许有情可原。
2）奥巴马的对应有失大国总统风范，与他本人的绣花枕头风格一致。在短短的交锋中，他明显失态和结巴。
3）最可笑的是韩国记者，居然在关键时刻如此掉链子。奥巴马压住芮请求韩国记者先提问，但居然就没人赶站出来替奥巴马结尾？这帮奴才简直就是吃货。这次韩国人的脸也是丢尽了。
总之，这个插曲中没有赢家，都显得不得体或者不睿智，总体上都是小气。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:36
要是美国记者在中国领导人发布会上，如此抢过给东道主国记者发言机会，“代表美洲”发言，中国反霸五毛会作何感想？
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:38
个人感觉：
1、芮，没礼貌。都那样拒绝了，还抢；
2、芮，英语很好。连奥巴马都称赞比自己的好（不知道芮有没有听出揶揄）；
3、芮“代表”全亚洲？谁授权的，一种“惯用语”？
4、这猛男在国内，哪怕敢抢一个县委书记的话头？就服他！
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:38
不讲秩序，到处代表别人，一副受虐狂心态
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:51
芮成钢（中国记者）：很不幸我可能会让你失望，奥巴马总统，其实我是中国人，我想我可以代表亚洲，我们是这里的成员之一。
奥巴马（美国总统）：你的英文比我中文要好，但是公平起见，该轮到韩国记者提问，所以…我想…你…。
芮成钢：如果韩国朋友可以让我代表他们来提问呢？好还是不好？
奥巴马：那要看韩国记者是否有问题问，没有，没有人发言吗？这好像变的比我预期的复杂。
芮成钢：请回答来自亚洲人的一个问题，奥巴马总统。
奥巴马：嗯，好，那就发问吧。我想确保韩国记者有提问机会。
作者: 刘海明 时间: 2010-11-13 17:51
http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=6556815
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:28
我想我可以代表亚洲
奥巴马说：“最后一个问题留给韩国媒体。”芮成钢站起来说：“我来自中国，我代表全亚洲提问。”全场嘘声一片。。。奥巴马说：“我刚才说的很清楚，最后问题留给韩国。“芮成钢死死抓住话筒问：”在场的韩国媒体都同意我来代表你们好不好？“
@芮成钢：这次首尔G20花絮很多。1：奥巴马发布会全球直播，本来完全没有美国以外的记者提问机会，全是奥巴马点名白宫随行记者团成员提问。这是奥的惯例。最后，他临时决定增加个问题，却又强调希望韩国媒体来问，结果等了一会儿全场竟然没有一个韩国记者举手，这对奥来说是极少见的，颇有些尴尬。
@骆新:他为国争光了。在韩国，他用流利的英语严厉谴责了奥巴马的无耻行径，并让韩国、亚洲和全世界，充分领略了“被CCTV代表”的激动之情。但是，一小撮别有用心的人，正挑动不明真相的群众围攻他，说他礼貌欠周……我靠，我们已如此强大，还讲他妈的什么礼貌？只要政治正确，扁死丫西方势力！
才出了个李肛，现在又来了个芮成肛，真是肛门不幸~~~
视频：G20峰会芮成钢同奥巴马讲三个代表
芮成钢：问题是，您如何确保糟糕的本土政治不会干扰或消极的影响到正确的国际经贸往来合作？
奥巴马：至于本土政治，你看，我是美国的总统，不是中国的主席，也不是日本首相，我不是参加峰会各位的首脑。我最直接的责任是让我们美国的人民生活得更好，这才是他们选举我到这个职位的目的。这也是前面几个问题中所提到的，为什么我来这里（参与20国峰会）能够帮助美国人民就业、购买住房、培养孩子上大学、实现我们所说的“美国梦”。衡量我的标准，就是要看我是否能有效地满足美国人民的需要和解决他们所关心的问题。
代表
奥巴马新闻发布会，请韩国记者提问，中国记者芮成钢斜刺杀出，强烈要求代表韩国，代表亚洲，成功弄晕奥巴马。在此过程中，韩国记者一声不吭，为什么呢——因为，对一个明智的国家来说，国内民生事务，比国际上的鸡毛蒜皮更值得关注。对一个明智的人来说，自我心灵的改善，远比瞎掰胡扯更有意义。（via
雾满拦江）
由于假话不受限制，行动就无所顾忌，说假话就可以掩盖行动的错误。社会就没了是非感。这是中国最大的社会危机。有识之士提倡说真话，可是没有说真话的环境，因为说真话要冒很大的风险，弄不好会坐牢。这也是统治者能继续维持中国道德缺失社会的根本原因。（via:茅于轼）
光明的新世界
我们的教科书说北洋政府是黑暗时代，可那个时代出现了中国报业的高峰，那个时代不需要考政治，不需要考英语就能出国留学，那么时代可以自由办报，可以发出独立声音，那如果是黑暗时代，那我们现在是什么？光明的新世界？（via:崔永元）
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:29
http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.as ... id=1&id=6557255
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:30
奥巴马说：“最后一个问题留给韩国媒体。”芮成钢站起来说：“我来自中国，我代表全亚洲提问。”全场嘘声一片。。。奥巴马说：“我刚才说的很清楚，最后问题留给韩国。“芮成钢死死抓住话筒问：”在场的韩国媒体都同意我来代表你们好不好？“
————————————————————
兰州在有视频的情况下公然说谎，太无耻了
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:34
奥巴马和芮成钢在记者会上的对话, 及其翻译
5198 次点击
73 个回复
0 次转到微评
用户004 于 2010-11-13 17:13:46 发布在 凯迪社区 > 猫眼看人
楼主: 以前在美国读书, 工作一年. 然后到澳州工作很长时间. 对西方人的表述有些理解能力.
美国总统这个档次的人物, 在公众场合, 即使心情不好, 还是试图以文明的方式表述自己的观点.
[芮成钢开始说话]
芮成钢: 很不幸, 奥巴马总统, 事实上, 我是中国人.
[记者席上发出嘲笑声, 可以很清楚的看到记者们在笑]
奥巴马: 奇妙的事情 …
[奥巴马可能没遇到过这么奇妙的事]
芮成钢: (打断奥巴马的话) 我想我可以代表亚洲提问.
奥巴马: 绝对的.
[这句话是很讽刺的]
芮成钢: 我们是这世界的成员之一.
奥巴马: (笑) 你的英语比我的中文好
[这句话的意思是: 你应该听懂我的英语, 我是让韩国记者提问].
为公平起见, 我刚才说的是, 让韩国记者提问题. 所以 … 我想 … 你知道 …, 你 …
芮成钢: (再次打断奥巴马的话) 如果韩国朋友让我代表他们提问呢? …
奥巴马: (有些不耐烦) 这要看韩国记者是不是有问题.
[向韩国记者询问] 有问题吗? 没有人有问题?
[非常希望韩国记者站出来, 但韩国记者没反应]
(笑) 这比我期望的更复杂.
[奥巴马这句话的意思是, 很难理解为什么韩国记者没人站出来]
芮成钢: 请回答来自亚洲人的一个问题.
奥巴马: 嗯, 嗯, 你可以提问题, 但我仍然想确认韩国记者是不是有问题要问.
[奥巴马很想有韩国记者提问]
[视频结束]
++++++++++++++++++++++++
楼主感觉, 奥巴马除了对芮成钢非常反感之外, 对韩国人的怯懦也不能理解.
为什么在奥巴马强烈暗示下, 韩国记者不帮奥巴马一下, 提个问题呢? 真是费解.
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:34
http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.as ... id=1&id=6557314
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:35
楼主感觉, 奥巴马除了对芮成钢非常反感之外, 对韩国人的怯懦也不能理解.
为什么在奥巴马强烈暗示下, 韩国记者不帮奥巴马一下, 提个问题呢? 真是费解.
==============================================
对于韩国人来说，看中国人耍猴显然比提个问题更有意思。
美韩是同盟，有问题有意见都可以很方便地沟通，而放过一个娱乐机会显然十分可惜。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:35
最后，奥巴马不太客气了，收敛了笑容，用了“but I want”这样相对强硬的措辞。如果用客气一点的语气，美国人很习惯用“but I would like”。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:42
本帖最后由 admin 于 2010-11-13 19:54 编辑
12 November 2010
Obama’s Press Conference After G20 Meetings in Seoul, South Korea
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
November 12, 2010
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT AFTER G20 MEETINGS
Coex Center
Seoul, Republic of Korea
4:43 P.M. KST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I discuss the G20, I want to briefly comment on the agreement in Iraq that's taken place on the framework for a new government. There’s still challenges to overcome, but all indications are that the government will be representative, inclusive, and reflect the will of the Iraqi people who cast their ballots in the last election.
This agreement marks another milestone in the history of modern Iraq. Once again, Iraqis are showing their determination to unify Iraq and build its future and that those impulses are far stronger than those who want Iraq to descend into sectarian war and terror.
For the last several months, the United States has worked closely with our Iraqi partners to promote a broad-based government -- one whose leaders share a commitment to serving all Iraqis as equal citizens. Now, Iraq's leaders must finish the job of forming their government so that they can meet the challenges that a diverse coalition will inevitably face. And going forward, we will support the Iraqi people as they strengthen their democracy, resolve political disputes, resettle those displaced by war, and build ties of commerce and cooperation with the United States, the region and the world.
Now, here in Seoul, once again, we are very grateful to our hosts -- President Lee, and the people of Seoul and South Korea -- for your extraordinary hospitality.
We came to Seoul to continue the work that has taken us from London to Pittsburgh to Toronto. We worked together to pull the global economy back from catastrophe. To avoid the old cycles of boom and bust that led to that crisis, we committed ourselves to growth that is balanced and sustained, including financial reform and fiscal responsibility.
The actions we took were not always easy or popular. But they were necessary. As a result, the global economy is growing again. Some economies, especially emerging economies, are experiencing strong economic growth. Trade has risen. Jobs are being created, as in the United States, where we’ve had 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth and created more than one million private sector jobs this year alone.
In short, we succeeded in putting the global economy back on the path of recovery -- but we also know that the progress has not come nearly fast enough, especially when it comes to my highest priority, which is putting Americans back to work.
Nor have we yet achieved the balanced global growth that we need. Many advanced economies are growing too slowly and not creating enough jobs. Some countries are running large surpluses, others running large deficits. Put simply, we risk slipping back into the old imbalances that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place and which threaten global recovery.
So here in Seoul, the question was whether our nations could work together to keep the global economy growing. I know the commentary tends to focus on the inevitable areas of disagreement, but the fact is the 20 major economies gathered here are in broad agreement on the way forward -- an agreement that is based on a framework that was put forward by the United States. And for the first time, we spelled out the actions that are required -- in four key areas -- to achieve the sustained and balanced growth that we need.
First, we agreed to keep focusing on growth. At home, the United States has been doing our part by making historic investments in infrastructure and education, research and clean energy. And as a consequence, our economy is growing again -– even as we must do more to ensure that that growth is sustained and translates into jobs for our people.
Here at Seoul, we agreed that growth must be balanced. Countries with large deficits must work to reduce them, as we are doing in the United States, where we’re on track to cut our deficit in half by 2013, and where I’m prepared to make tough decisions to achieve that goal. Likewise, countries with large surpluses must shift away from unhealthy dependence on exports and take steps to boost domestic demand. As I’ve said, going forward, no nation should assume that their path to prosperity is paved simply with exports to the United States.
Second, we agreed that exchange rates must reflect economic realities. Just as the major advanced economies need to keep working to preserve stability among reserve currencies, emerging economies need to allow for currencies that are market-driven. This is something that I raised yesterday with President Hu of China, and we will continue to closely watch the appreciation of China’s currency. All of us need to avoid actions that perpetuate imbalances and give countries an undue advantage over one another.
Third, we took further steps to implement financial regulatory reform. At home, we are implementing the toughest financial reform since the Great Depression, and we are expecting the same sense of urgency, rather than complacency, among our G20 partners. Here in Seoul we agreed to new standards -- similar to those that we’ve passed in the United States -- to make sure that banks have the capital they need to withstand shocks and not take excessive risks that could lead to another crisis. And we agreed on an approach to ensure that taxpayers are not asked to pay for future bank failures.
Fourth, we agreed to focus on development as a key driver of economic growth. The work we did here today builds on a new development policy that I announced in September and recognizes that the most effective means of lifting people out of poverty is to create sustainable economic growth -– growth that will create the markets of the future. We also agreed on an action plan to combat corruption, which in some countries is the single greatest barrier to economic progress.
Finally, we reaffirmed the need to avoid protectionism that stifles growth and instead pursue trade and investment through open markets. That’s why, for example, we will continue to work towards a U.S.-Korea free trade agreement in the coming weeks -- not just any agreement, but the best agreement to create jobs both in America and Korea.
And that's why I spoke very frankly to my G20 partners today about the prospects of the Doha Round. For just as emerging economies have gained a greater voice at international financial institutions -- in part because of the work we've done here at the G20 -- so, too, must they embrace their responsibilities to open markets to the trade and investment that creates jobs in all our countries.
So, again, I want to thank our South Korean hosts for a very successful summit. I want to thank my fellow leaders for their partnership. Here in Seoul, we’ve laid out the steps we must take to realize the balanced and sustained growth that we need. And now and in the days ahead, these are the commitments that we’re going to have to meet.
So with that, let me take a few questions. And I’ll start off with Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. A question on the South Korea free trade agreement. If U.S. concerns on autos and beef aren’t adequately addressed over the next few weeks, at that point would it be better to just have no deal at all?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve always said that I’m not interested in signing a trade agreement just for the sake of an announcement. I’m interested in trade agreements that increase jobs and exports for the United States, and hopefully also increase opportunities for our trading partners. I think that is achievable between the United States and Korea.
But the whole issue here from my perspective, and has always been over the last couple of years, is do we have a deal that works for us? That’s my first obligation. President Lee’s obligation obviously is to make sure it works for Korea. I think we can get a win-win, but it was important to take the extra time so that I am assured that it is a win for American workers and American companies as well as for Korean workers and Korean companies, because I’m the one who’s going to have to go to Congress and sell it.
And from my perspective, again, I’m not interested in a announcement but then an agreement that doesn’t produce for us. We’ve had a lot of those in the past -- a lot of announcements but, at the same time, we see American manufacturing deteriorate and, as a consequence, a lot of concern back home. And understandably, I think there’s a lot of suspicion that some of these trade deals may not be good for America. I think this one can be but I want to make sure that when I present that trade agreement to Congress I am absolutely confident that we’ve got the kind of deal that is good for both countries.
Dan Lothian of CNN.
Q: Thank you. After the midterm elections you said that you were open to compromise on the Bush tax cuts. I’m wondering if you’re prepared today to say that you’re willing to accept a temporary extension for the wealthiest Americans? And then on an unrelated question, do you feel that the election has weakened you on the global stage?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer to the second question is no. I think what we’ve seen over the last several days as we’ve traveled through Asia is that people are eager to work with America, eager to engage with America on economic issues, on security issues, on a whole range of mutual interests. And that’s especially true in Asia, where we see such enormous potential. This is the fastest-growing part of the world. And we’ve got to be here and we’ve got to work. And I’m absolutely confident that my administration over the next two years is going to continue to make progress in ensuring that the United States has a presence here not just for the next couple of years but for decades to come.
With respect to the Bush tax cuts, what I’ve said is that I’m going to meet with both the Republican and Democratic leaders late next week and we’re going to sit down and discuss how we move forward. My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks. I don’t want to see their income taxes spike up -- not only because they need relief after having gone through a horrendous recession, but also because it would be bad for the economy.
I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can’t afford it. And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution. But I’m not going to negotiate here in Seoul. My job is to negotiate back in Washington with Republican and Democratic leaders.
Ben Feller of AP.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You came to Asia talking about the deep frustration that Americans feel about the slow pace of recovery in the economy, and over your travels in the past 10 days you’ve been talking a lot about sustainable growth. But the American people don’t seem as interested in gradual growth as much as they want real, noticeable help right now. Can you promise them that there will be, in fact, noticeable job growth during your four-year term? And do you think that the unemployment rate will still be north of 9 percent when you run for reelection?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t have a crystal ball, Ben, but I will say this. First of all, we’ve grown the economy by a million jobs over the last year. So that’s pretty noticeable. I think those million people who’ve been hired notice those paychecks. And that’s 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth.
In order to speed up job growth, we’ve put forward a range of proposals that I hope to discuss with Democratic and Republican leaders -- because I don’t think we can just stand pat. I continue to believe that we need to invest in a creaky infrastructure back home. And I think as you travel around Asia, you start seeing other countries investing in infrastructure. That’s what the United States has done in the past, but we’ve been living off the investments that we made back in the ’30s, ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s. And it’s time for us to make sure that we’ve upgraded our roads and our railways and our airports. That will make us more productive and will put people back to work right now.
I continue to believe that it is important for us to work with businesses to see if we can incentivize them to invest now rather than holding cash waiting for the future. They’ve got cash to spend. And so we’ve put forward a series of tax proposals that historically Republicans have supported. And my expectation would be there’s no reason for them not to support it just because I’m supporting it. And so that’s a conversation that I hope to have next week.
But we have a recovery. It needs to be speeded up. Government can’t hire back the 8 million people who lost their jobs. Ultimately that’s up to the private sector. But I think we can set the conditions whereby we’re seeing significant improvement during the course of the next year, the next two years, and we can chip away at the unemployment rate so that we get back to the kinds of levels that reflect a growing middle class and increased opportunity for all people.
Jake Tapper.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. This communiqué has a commitment that all countries will refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies. I’m wondering what you think that means concretely when it comes to China’s behavior, what you expect from them?
And also I’m wondering, when it comes to Congress, if you think your party, the Democratic Party, would benefit from new blood, new leadership?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ve been very clear and persistent since I came into office that we welcome China’s rise; we think the fact that China has grown as remarkably as it has, has lifted millions of people out of poverty, and that is ultimately good for the world and good for America -- because it means that China has the opportunity to be a responsible partner. It means that China can be an enormous market for the United States, for Korea, for countries throughout Asia and around the world. And it’s just good to get people out of poverty and give them opportunity.
What I’ve also said is that precisely because of China’s success, it’s very important that it act in a responsible fashion internationally. And the issue of the RNB is one that is an irritant not just to the United States, but is an irritant to a lot of China’s trading partners and those who are competing with China to sell goods around the world. It is undervalued. And China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued.
And so what we’ve said is it’s important for China in a gradual fashion to transition to a market-based system. Now, this is something that China has done in the past. And China has also acknowledged that it needs to transition to a more balanced growth strategy internally where they're focusing on their enormous domestic market and giving their people the opportunity to buy goods and services and consume -- all of which will promote their growth, but also will reduce some of the imbalances around the world.
And so what this communiqué I think communicates -- not just to China but to all of us -- is letting currencies reflect market fundamentals, allowing your currency to move up and down, depending on the role that you're playing in the international trading system, is the best way to assure that everybody benefits from trade rather than just some. And the communiqué strongly communicates that principle.
My expectation is that China is going to make progress on this issue. President Hu is going to be visiting me in Washington in January, and our hope and expectation is, is that we will continue to see progress on this front.
It means some adjustments for China. And so we understand that this is not solved overnight. But it needs to be dealt with and I'm confident that it can be.
Sheryl Stolberg. Oh -- I think that what we will naturally see is a whole bunch of talented people rise to the top as they promote good ideas that attract the American people when it comes to jobs and investment and how to grow the economy and how to deal with our challenges. I think Speaker Pelosi has been an outstanding partner for me. I think Harry Reid has been a terrific partner in moving some very difficult legislation forward. And I'm looking forward to working with the entire leadership team to continue to make progress on the issues that are important to the American people.
Sheryl.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm hoping to get you in a little bit of a reflective mode. You spoke in your press conference in D.C. about your relationship with the American people. You said then that it had built slowly, it peaked at this incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years it had gotten rockier and tougher. And I'm wondering if you think the same could be said of your relations with foreign leaders, who maybe were just a teensy bit falling all over you when you first arrived on the world stage.
THE PRESIDENT: That's not how I remember it. I remember our first G20 you guys writing the exact same stories you're writing now about the exact same issues. Don't you remember that, Sheryl? (Laughter.)
The United States, obviously, has a special role to play on the international stage, regardless of who is President. We are a very large, very wealthy, very powerful country. We have had outsized influence over world affairs for a century now. And you are now seeing a situation in which a whole host of other countries are doing very well and coming into their own, and naturally they are going to be more assertive in terms of their interests and ideas. And that's a healthy thing. That's why we now have a G20 -- because the old arrangements didn’t fully reflect these new realities.
But let’s just reflect on this summit. The Framework for Balanced and Sustainable Growth is one that we helped to originate. The financial reforms and Basel III are based on ideas that came out of our work and reflect many of the principles that are in Dodd-Frank. The development document that was set forward in this communiqué tracks the development ideas that I put forward several weeks ago in terms of how we can encourage not just aid, but also self-sufficiency. The corruption initiative that's reflected in the communiqué was prompted by recommendations and suggestions that we made.
So sometimes, I think, naturally there’s an instinct to focus on the disagreements, because otherwise, these summits might not be very exciting -- it’s just a bunch of world leaders sitting around intervening. And so there’s a search for drama. But what’s remarkable is that in each of these successive summits we've actually made real progress.
And sometimes the progress -- charting the progress requires you to go back and look at previous summits, starting off with -- let’s say, on financial regulatory -- in Toronto, we said, here’s what we need to do; let’s have this ready by the time we get to Seoul. It wasn’t real sexy back in Toronto and nobody really wrote about it, but it actually moved the ball forward in terms of a coordinated response to financial regulation.
IMF reform is something that the United States has said we need to get done. And in previous summits, we said we’re going to find a way to get that done. And lo and behold, here we are at this summit and we’ve actually achieved what is a huge shift in how power is assigned in these international financial institutions.
So the work that we do here is not always going to seem dramatic. It’s not always going to be immediately world-changing. But step by step, what we’re doing is building stronger international mechanisms and institutions that will help stabilize the economy, ensure economic growth and reduce some tensions.
Now, last point I’ll make on this: Part of the reason that sometimes it seems as if the United States is attracting some dissent is because we’re initiating ideas. We’re putting them forward. The easiest thing for us to do would be to take a passive role and let things just drift, which wouldn’t cause any conflict. But we thought it was important for us to put forward more structure to this idea of balanced and sustained growth. And some countries pushed back. They were concerned about what might this -- is this somehow going to lock us in to having to change our growth patterns or our trade policies or what have you. And that resistance is natural. It arises out of the fact that the U.S. is showing leadership and we are pushing to try to bring about changes.
Q: -- leaders and if you had noticed any change during your time in office --
THE PRESIDENT: And I guess what I’m saying is, is that I actually think that my relationships have grown much stronger with the people who I’ve worked with here.
When I first came into office, people might have been interested in more photo ops because there had been a lot of hoopla surrounding my election. But I now have a genuine friendship with Prime Minister Singh of India and I think that he and I share a level of understanding and interest in working together that didn’t exist when I first came onto the scene. I think the same is true for Chancellor Merkel; the same is true for Prime Minister Erdogan; the same is true for President Lee.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be differences, but -- the same is true for my relationship with President Hu. It wasn’t any easier to talk about currency when I had just been elected and my poll numbers were at 65 percent than it is now. It was hard then and it’s hard now. Because this involves the interests of countries and not all of these are going to be resolved easily. And it’s not just a function of personal charm. It’s a function of countries’ interests and seeing if we can work through to align them.
All right. Savannah Guthrie.
Q: A quick follow-up. Some are interpreting your senior advisor David Axelrod’s comments to a newspaper back home that your compromise position is to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts. Is that the wrong interpretation?
THE PRESIDENT: That is the wrong interpretation because I haven’t had a conversation with Republican and Democratic leaders. Here’s the right interpretation. I want to make sure that taxes don’t go up for middle-class families starting on January 1st. That’s my number-one priority -- for those families and for our economy.
I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we’ve got our Republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit.
So there may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues. I’m not going to negotiate here in Seoul on those issues. But I’ve made very clear what my priorities are.
Q: Oh, sorry, that was actually my quick follow-up --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. (Laughter.)
Q: -- but this leads me right to my real question, which is, speaking of fiscal responsibility, given the fact that the bulk of the expense of extending the tax cuts to the middle class would be trillions of dollars, in the interest of telling the truth to the American people, can we afford that? Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the middle class in the United States saw their real wages go down 5 percent over the period of 2001 to 2009, at the same time as all their costs were going up. And so giving them permanent relief is good for those families. I also believe strongly it is good for our economy right now, at a time when we are still in recovery.
The costs are significant and we are going to have to have a discussion about over the medium and long term how do we match up our spending with our revenues -- because right now they are way out of balance. That’s why we have a deficit. That’s why we have a debt. And it is our responsibility to the next generation to make sure that that gets solved.
I don’t start thinking on the revenue side. I start thinking on the spending side -- where can we potentially save money? I’m looking forward to getting the official Bowles-Simpson recommendations. I’m going to study those carefully, consult widely, and see what we can do on the spending side that will have an impact. And then we’ve got to see how much of a shortfall do we have. And then we’re going to have to have a debate, which will probably be a tough debate and has to be an honest debate with the American people about how do we pay for those things that we think are really important.
I think it is really important for us to invest in research and development because that’s going to be the key to innovation and our long-term economic success. But we’ve got to figure out how to pay for that. I think it’s really important to invest in our education system. That’s going to be a key to our long-term economic growth and competitiveness. How are we going to pay to make sure that young people can go to college? I think it’s important to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are there not just for this generation but for the next. How do we make that sustainable?
So that’s going to be a series of tough conversations. What I know is that if we’re spending $700 billion -- if we’re borrowing $700 billion to pay for tax breaks for folks like me who don’t need them and where I’m least likely to spend that money and circulate it in the economy, that’s probably not a great approach.
But, again, I know that the other side feels very strongly about it and I’m willing to have a tough, hard-headed discussion with Democratic and Republican leaders about that issue.
Chip Reid.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I know it’s not your habit to comment on Fed decisions, but there’s been quite a bit of reporting, if you believe it, and I’m sure you do, that there’s quite a bit of unhappiness among G20 countries over that decision. And I’m not asking you to comment on the decision. But did you get an earful from other leaders here on the Fed decision? Could you share with us what some of them said? And if you’re not willing to delve too deeply into that, what was the number-one complaint, concern, or piece of advice that you got from foreign leaders about the U.S. economy and your stewardship of the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: What about compliments? You didn’t put that in the list. There was only complaints, concerns, or -- (laughter.) You know, there was not a lot of discussion about the Fed decision in the leaders’ meetings. I think a couple of times there were some veiled references to monetary policy that may have effect on other countries. But it wasn’t central to any of the discussions that we had.
I know that on the margins, there was a lot of discussion -- and in the press, there was a huge amount of discussion about it. But I have to tell you that wasn’t part of the discussion that we had inside the leaders’ meetings.
Most of the discussion had to do with how do we translate this idea of rebalancing into concrete steps. And the communiqué accurately reflects the consensus. It’s puzzling to me that the reporting is all talking about conflict when the communiqué actually reflects a hard-won consensus that the world’s 20 largest economies signed up for and that gives us some mechanisms to start monitoring, looking at indicators, seeing how countries are doing on this front.
It doesn’t provide an enforcement mechanism that says to Korea or the United States or Germany or Brazil you have to do something, but it does give the international community the ability to monitor and see exactly what countries are doing, and to see if the policies they're pursuing are fair to their trading partners. And if they're not, then it gives a mechanism to apply at least some peer pressure on those countries to start doing something about it.
I think when people talk to me about the U.S. economy, their main concern is, is it growing fast enough. Because a lot of countries, including South Korea, depend a lot on exports and the U.S. is the world’s largest market. They want to see us grow. They want unemployment to go down in the United States. And so I think they're very interested in what are additional strategies that can be used to encourage take-off in the U.S. economy. And I described to them some of the steps that we’re taking and that we’re going to be continuing to take in order to make that happen.
I guess the last point I would just make about the Fed decision, when I am asked about it my simple point is to say that, from everything I can see, this decision was not one designed to have an impact on the currency, on the dollar. It was designed to grow the economy.
And there’s some legitimate concern that we’ve had very low inflation, that a huge danger in the United States is deflation, and that we have to be mindful of those dangers going forward because that wouldn't be good for the United States or for the rest of the world.
Beyond that, that's just an observation about what I think the intent was.
Last question -- Scott Horsley.
Q: One of your top advisors said this morning that the challenges facing the G20 now are much more manageable than they were at the height of the crisis. How does that affect the dynamic? Is there some taking the eye off the ball among your fellow leaders?
THE PRESIDENT: I think what it means is that in the absence of crisis people probably are willing to hunker down a little bit more on some of the negotiations. Speed seems less of the essence, and so people think, well, if it doesn’t get solved now maybe we can put this off for another day.
What’s remarkable to me, though, is despite some of those impulses we're still getting stuff done. And as I emphasized before, we should not anticipate that every time countries come together that we are doing some revolutionary thing. Instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we're going to hit singles. But they’re really important singles. And I just listed some of these out.
IMF reform -- this is something that folks have been talking about for a decade or more. It’s gotten done. Financial regulatory reform -- huge lift -- that we talked about in my first G20 summit, it is now coming to fruition. We've still got some more work to do but we've made enormous progress in a huge -- really short period of time. Basel II I think took a decade to negotiate; we got this done basically in a year and a half.
The development agenda that's been put forward will make a difference. This rebalancing is still a work in progress, but everybody is on record now saying surplus countries and deficit countries both have to be mindful of their policies and think about the adjustments that they need so that we can sustain economic growth and keep our borders open to goods and services over the long term.
So those are all positives, and I think that's an indication of the seriousness with which people take these meetings -- even if, as I said, it’s not always going to be revolutionary progress but sometimes evolutionary progress.
I feel obliged to take maybe one question from the Korean press -- since you guys have been such excellent hosts. Anybody? This gentleman right here -- he’s got his hand up. He’s the only one who took me up on it. Go ahead. And I'll probably need a translation, though, if you're asking the question in Korean. In fact, I definitely will need a translation. (Laughter.)
Q: Unfortunately, I hate to disappoint you, President Obama, I'm actually Chinese. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s wonderful to see you.
Q: But I think I get to represent the entire Asia.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q: We're one family here in this part of the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your English is better than my Mandarin also. (Laughter.) But -- now, in fairness, though, I did say that I was going to let the Korean press ask a question. So I think that you held up your hand anyway.
Q: How about will my Korean friends allow me to ask a question on your behalf? Yes or no?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it depends on whether there’s a Korean reporter who would rather have the question. No, no takers?
Q: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: This is getting more complicated than I expected. (Laughter.)
Q: Take quick, one question from an Asian, President Obama.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- as I said, I was going to -- go ahead and ask your question, but I want to make sure that the Korean press gets a question as well.
Q: Okay. My question is very simple. You mentioned interpretation. I know part of the difficulty being the American President is that some of the decisions that you take, actions you make will be interpreted in a way that are not what you thought they would be or what you meant they would be. For instance, some of the actions you’ve taken were interpreted as anti-business, domestically, in the United States. And as someone just mentioned, some of the actions taken by the U.S. government that you represent as well were interpreted as sacrificing other countries’ interests for America’s own benefit. So you find yourself constantly being interpreted in a thousand different ways. How do you address these interpretations?
THE PRESIDENT: With a wonderful press conference like this that give me the opportunity hopefully to provide my own interpretation. But, look, you make a valid point. We live in a connected world. Everything I say, everything my administration does, anything one of my aides does is interpreted in one fashion or another. In America we call it spin. And there’s a spin cycle that is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I think that in this media environment, it is in some ways more challenging to make sure that your message and your intentions are getting out in a consistent basis.
But I think that if I’m consistent with my actions and I’m consistent with my goals, then over time hopefully people look at my overall trajectory and they can draw accurate conclusions about what we’re trying to do.
With respect to business, for example, we’ve had in the United States some battles between myself and some in the business community around issues like financial regulation or health care. At the same time, I’ve said repeatedly and I said on this trip, we can’t succeed unless American businesses succeed. And I’m going to do everything I can to promote their ability to grow and prosper and to sell their goods both in the United States and abroad. And the fact that the economy is now growing and trade is expanding and the stock market is up I think is an indication that I mean what I say. And hopefully by the end of my administration businesses will look back and say, you know what, actually the guy was pretty good for business -- even if at any given point in the road they may be frustrated.
So -- all right, now I’m stuck with this last one but I think I’ve got to go fly a plane.
Q: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q: What led your administration to decide to try and extract further concessions from Korea on imports of American beef? And did you miscalculate the extent that this appears to be non-negotiable here in Korea? Do you really think you can convince people living in Korea to buy more American beef?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, beef was not the only issue that was of concern. In fact, a larger concern had to do with autos. And the concern is very simple. We have about 400,000 Korean autos in the United States and a few thousand American cars here in Korea. And people are concerned about whether the standards, the non-tariff barriers with respect to autos is something that is preventing us from being able to compete with very good products.
Now, I think that we can find a sweet spot that works both for Korea and the United States. But I repeat, I’m not interested in trade agreements just for the sake of trade agreements. I want trade agreements that work for the other side, but my main job is to look out for the American people, American workers and American businesses. And I want to make sure that this deal is balanced. And so we’re going to keep on working on it. But I’m confident we can get it done.
All right, thank you very much, everybody. I’m late for my flight. (Applause.)
END 5:30 P.M. KST
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/November/20101112083910su8.591425e-02.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz15A93hwk
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/November/20101112083910su8.591425e-02.html?CP.rss=true
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:45
芮成钢骗提问：无耻成了炫耀的功绩
早晨看到CCTV2“成钢观察”的一段视频，（为避免有人说造谣，先把国内央视节目的网址附在这里：[url=http://finance.qq.com/a/20101112/006890.htm]http://finance.qq.com/a/20101112/006890.htm[/url]，香港的完整视频/美国官方网站的也一并附在后面，请编辑勿删，谢谢！），央视记者芮成钢讲述他采访了参加G20峰会的美国总统奥巴马先生，芮记者特意提及和强调“这也是整个G20峰会上奥巴马总统接受的唯一一个来至亚洲国家的问题”，言及颇有得色。
看到央视和芮记者特意提及此，作为爱国中青年的本人也很高兴：央视和芮记者真是好样的，他们争得了“亚洲唯一的”提问权，这不仅是他们的荣耀和功绩，也是中国国力不断提升，获得世界认可，进而赢得美国尊重的一种表现啊。作为中国人，咱能不高兴么！都不禁有点醺醺然了。
可惜，互联网实在不是个好东西，它往往戳穿谎言的无耻——咱还没来得及从醺醺然的陶醉中缓过来呢，一上网，突然发现，原来芮记者“亚洲唯一的”提问是抢话筒抢来的——准确地讲，是通过冒名顶替和投机取巧给“骗”来的。香港的视频（网址如下：[url=http://v.ifeng.com/news/china/201011/a62cf0ef-03ed-43b8-89fb-455e2b864d60.shtml]http://v.ifeng.com/news/china/201011/a62cf0ef-03ed-43b8-89fb-455e2b864d60.shtml[/url]）还原了全过程：原来奥巴马总统在记者会的最后，觉得要给东道主韩国记者一个机会，于是公开说请韩国记者提问。按照惯例，应该是韩国的记者举手，然后被点到的记者起来提问才对。可是，我们的芮大记者举手了，并且站起来提问了。他借助一张美国人分不清的亚洲脸孔冒充韩国人钻了出来，然后对美国总统说“对不起，我不是韩国人”；在奥巴马总统坚持维护韩国记者的提问权的时候，他依然霸着话筒，号称自己“代表亚洲，代表韩国记者”提问了。
很奇怪，众目睽睽之下，国际性的记者会上居然还有这样的事情发生。本人还不大敢相信，还担心是不是有些别有用心的人故意做了这段视频来无耻地污蔑我们的好记者呢，于是看了下美国政府的官方网站（网址如下：[url=http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/November/20101112083910su8.591425e-02.html?CP.rss=true]http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/November/20101112083910su8.591425e-02.html?CP.rss=true[/url]），发现事实居然果真如此。
——原来，芮记者特意提及并津津乐道的
“亚洲唯一的”提问权，居然是这么骗和抢来的！
新闻发布会自由提问，所有记者的权利当然是平等的，主办方也没有限制任何人举手的权利；被点到的人发问，没有被点到的人自认运气不佳，这也天经地义。可是，在人家已经明确表示限定特定群体提问了，却去冒充特定群体抢话筒，这和“顶替上大学”“顶替考公务员”之类有本质区别吗？通过这种投机取巧和冒名顶替来达成目的，这种农民式的狡狯得逞之后不以为耻反以为荣，这是一种什么水准？
还没完，抢完话筒，芮大记者又号称自己“代表亚洲，代表韩国记者”提问了。不知道是不是因为平时代表我们代表惯了，我很奇怪，你凭什么代表亚洲，亚洲哪个国家要你代表了？你又凭什么代表东道主韩国？
更让人吃惊的还不在这里。
如果说芮大记者把无耻当有趣，央视靠鬼斧神工的剪辑把无耻当炫耀的功绩，那是他们的事，我只替他们的家长和小学老师遗憾，犯不着来写这篇文字。让我吃惊的是，国人对此事的态度：
凤凰网在本条新闻之后的一个问卷调查中，居然有大多数甚至绝大多数填写调查的人为芮的这种行为叫好——60%以上的人觉得这种行为应该鼓励，芮的专业执着值得鼓励；50%以上的人觉得他可以代表亚洲和中国；48%的人觉得他这样反应了中国人的职业/进取精神……
不看不知道，一看吓一跳。
原来，我们平时所愤慨所反对的，都不是真的。其实我们一直是觉得：被人冒名顶替上大学/当公务员等等这些是应该支持的；不遵守基本的规则，投机取巧强抢别人的机会是应该鼓励的；办事不排队/加塞，那是应该的；不经过许可，代表我们乱决策、胡花海用/强拆我们家园等等那都是应该鼓掌叫好的……
以前冷眼看对岸，总有人喜欢批评对岸的绿营“只讲立场，不分是非”，其实，人家那只是逃了五十步，自己这边早跑了100步了呢。
看芮和普通民众的态度和表现，这也正应了我的一个一贯的观点：很多人表面上看起来呼喊民主，其实那只是因为更恨主子；很多人反对控诉特权腐败社会不公，其实他并不是反对不公平本身，他所愤慨的不过是别人可以享受特权自己居然没有机会去主导不公，实质不过是阿Q先生“和尚摸得，我却摸不得”的翻版罢了。
这样的民众土壤，这样的社会氛围，各种乱象不是很正常吗？我们愤怒和抱怨的，其实都是自己骨子里认可和习惯的。每个人都在抱怨路上堵得厉害，每个人都有机会就不遵守规则超车和乱闯红灯；每个人都抱怨社会道德滑坡礼崩乐坏，每个人自己都搞假大空鲜廉寡耻；每个人都觉得自己是受害者，每个人同时又是帮凶并十分渴望成为加害者……
我们完全不需要愤怒抱怨了——因为，无耻的、不遵守规则的、制造乱象的，就是我们自己。
附：凤凰网该新闻后面的评论
支持人数最多的说：非常欣赏这种记者，再接再厉……他所说的代表亚洲我想是为了回应奥巴马对期望韩国记者提问的回击罢了……——很奇怪，作为接受提问的一方，给了大家自由提问的机会之后，难道没有指定特定国家/媒体和记者的权力吗？当年开两会，大家问过一轮之后，朱总理有时候会点名凤凰卫视的吴小莉女士提问，那其它记者是不是都该跳出来回击他对吴记者提问的期望呢（这是一种什么样的好斗习性？天天批评别人冷战思维，一个普通的提问就上升到“回击”了，这是一种什么思维模式？）
支持数其次的说：体现了自信与执着，并由此走红。反正我是记住了这个人啦！干得不错！！不是人人都有这份勇气的。——不知道这种把无耻当荣耀体现了什么自信与执着，在众目睽睽之下冒名顶替和抢话筒确实需要勇气，可惜，是厚脸皮的勇气。
这个小伙子在他的战场上表现不俗！值得国人学习！美国总统在我们的家门口大谈美韩关系、美印关系的时刻，在近来不断释放出要边缘孤立中国的时候，我们每个中国人都要拿起自己的武器，在可以冲锋陷阵时刻勇敢地站起来与美国进行战斗！合理地利用规则没有什么不对，更谈不上不礼貌！——世界果然不和谐，战场无处不在。
好像这次过分的是奥巴马吧？对于一个中国记者的提问这么计较，甚至语无伦次的进行辩解，只能彰显他围堵、遏制中国的虚弱内心，芮成钢只是帮我们看清了这一点而已！——阶级警惕性很高。
记者采访和提问，是工作性质所决定，无论被提问者是什么人，作为记者，都有权利进行提问，这无可厚非，就像警察对待犯罪嫌疑人一样。——不知道这位敢提问他主子吗？家被强拆了，被城管打嘴巴了，这个英勇的妓者敢去质问领导吗？
现在的有些网民真是让人匪夷所思，芮成钢有做的不对的吗？你为什么不结合国际形势看看（美国逼迫人民币升值、贬值自己的货币），再来发表。就要有芮这样的人来维护国家利益，那些被人卖了还帮着数钱的人只是一个悲剧——不知道芮这次是怎么维护国家利益的。另外，中美谁的通货膨胀更厉害，谁的货币贬值的更厉害，谁超量发行货币更多？
还有更绝的：成钢做得非常好，既然招开记者会，也是记者成员之一，难道中国记者就没有提问权吗？这不是明摆着对中国有成见吗？！——我的点评：骨子里的自卑表露无疑。公开的机会大家都举手，那不是给予你提问的权力了吗？没被点到，那是运气不好，就像还有几百同样一直举手却没有被点到的人一样。上纲上线到对中国的成见，这就是心态问题了。这是成见的话，那还有其它近百个没被点到的记者，岂不是都是“成见”啊。所以这个“做的非常好”和后面的“明摆着有成见”结合在一起，倒是现在很典型的暴发户似的中国人心态——骨子里自卑，由此一有机会又表现出相应的自狂自大、粗鲁野蛮，把无知当有趣。
……
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:45
http://club.kdnet.net/dispbbs.as ... id=1&id=6557276
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 19:55
再看看芮的谎言：他居然是替奥和韩国人打圆场呢！
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4adabe270100n07h.html?retcode=0
人家韩国作为东道主不知道多少媒体在场，不知道多少问题要问，
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 21:26
看背景，别人都在笑。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 21:26
有个女记者笑得太残忍，象是看一个猴子说人话。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-13 21:27
http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=6557455
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:05
RUI CHENGGANG: Rui Chenggang of China Central Television. It seems the world leaders have been talking about increasing the voice and voting rights of developing countries. I would like to ask two questions instead of just one. First one, on behalf of China...
芮成钢：芮成钢,来自中国中央电视台。既然全球的领导人一直在讲要给发展中国家更多的话语权和投票权，那么我就想问两个问题而不是一个问题。第一个问题是代表中国问的..
OBAMA: I may choose which one I want to answer.
奥巴马：我可能只选择其中一个问题回答。
(LAUGHTER)（奥巴马笑）
RUI CHENGGANG: of course.
芮成钢：当然可以。
OBAMA: That's always the danger of asking two questions.
奥巴马：问两个问题总是有风险的。
RUI CHENGGANG: First one, you've had a very fruitful meeting with our President. And during the Clinton administration, U.S.-China relationship was characterized, in Clinton's words, "strategic, constructive partnership." During the Bush era it was the catchphrase, quote, unquote, "stakeholder." The Bush administration expects China to to become a responsible stakeholder in international affairs. Have you come up with a catchphrase of your own? And, certainly, it is not the G-2, is it?
芮成钢：首先，您和中国国家主席在此次峰会上进行了成果颇丰的会谈。在克林顿时期，中美关系被克林顿概括为“建设性战略伙伴关系”。在小布什时期，（形容中美关系的）关键词是“利益相关者”——当时的布什政府希望中国在国际事务中担当负责任的利益相关者。您是否已经有了一个自己的关键词（来定位中美关系）呢？那当然不会是所谓的G2，对吧？
And my second question is, on behalf of the world, politics is very local, even though we've been talking about global solution, as indicated by your recent preference over American journalists and British, which is OK. (Laughter.) How can you make sure that you will do whatever you can， so that that local politics will not trump or negatively affect good international economics?
Thank you, Mr. President.
我的第二个问题是代表全世界问的。虽然我们一直在讲全球性的对策，但政治本身却是非常本土化的，正如您刚才一直优先选择美国和英国的记者提问，不过这倒没有什么。（奥巴马笑）
问题是，您如何确保糟糕的本土政治不会干扰或消极的影响到正确的国际经贸往来合作？谢谢，总统先生。
OBAMA: Well, those those are excellent questions. On on the first question, your American counterparts will tell you I'm terrible with those little catchphrases and sound bites. So I haven't come up with anything catchy yet, but if you have any suggestions, let me know. (LAUGHTER) I'll be happy to use them.
奥巴马：你问得问题都非常精彩。关于第一个问题，你的美国同行们可以告诉你，我最不善于用关键词或短语对事务进行概括了。所以（对于中美关系）我到目前为止还没有想到用什么精辟的短语来概括。不过你要是有什么建议，不妨告诉我。（笑）我会很高兴的使用它。
In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States. I'm not the President of China, I'm not the President of Japan, I'm not the President of the other participants here. And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That's why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here, about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American Dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns.
至于本土政治，你看，我是美国的总统，不是中国的主席，也不是日本首相，我不是参加峰会各位的首脑。我最直接的责任是让我们美国的人民生活得更好，这才是他们选举我到这个职位的目的。这也是前面几个问题中所提到的，为什么我来这里（参与20国峰会）能够帮助美国人民就业、购买住房、培养孩子上大学、实现我们所说的“美国梦”。衡量我的标准，就是要看我是否能有效地满足美国人民的需要和解决他们所关心的问题。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:05
http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=6559056
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:09
芮成钢对奥巴马的开场白分析
文章提交者：搞活 加帖在 猫眼看人 【凯迪网络】 http://www.kdnet.net
＂很不幸, 奥巴马总统, 事实上, 我是中国人.＂一开始这句挑衅性的开场白就决定了后面不怎么爽的一问一答．这样一个记者招待会，做秀的成分很多，大家维持一个面子，也是会议组织者给社会大众的一个面子，例行公事而已，现在连中国足球都有记者招待会．一般哪怕心里有什么不爽，也不会直接用无内容的挑衅性话语作为开场白的（当然中国足球的记者招待会例外），在这样的场面显的小气粗鲁白白送人话柄．作为专业资深记者，芮同志应该是具备这个专业素养的．但奇怪的是他没有，派出去的应该是顶尖高手，怎么会出乖露丑了那？估计一下是不是这个情况，可能是他会议期间感到被冷落了而愤愤不平，一时半会找不到发泄的出口积郁于心，于是潜伏起来找机会报复，当奥巴马让他提问时，立马感觉策划成功机会来临，就来了上面那个开场白．那句话直白的说就是＂你上当了，我是中国人呀＂，奥巴马当然不知道芮同志被冷落内心有气，所以觉得他那话莫名其妙，觉得碰到了二傻，但为了不失形象，就婉转的来了句＂很奇妙的事情＂．当然大多数人也都不知道芮同志个人的内心感受，在场的其他记者不知道，他们只有感到好笑．我们也不知道，只好猜猜，估计他带着去接轨的心态热切的在那里忙东忙西，而人家早以接轨了的见怪不怪对这种会并不怎么当会事，当然更体会不到还有个来接轨的中国记者的心情，也没怎么响应芮同志的一腔热情，这下好了，惹恼了有错误都自己改正的并已经发展出了模式还取得巨大成就值得全世界人民学习的中国派出去的记者，麻烦当然接踵而至，你们活该．就一个记者那还算客气的，再不当我们一回事，义和团给你们看看．
忽然想起了过去的事，下乡的亲戚来城里作客，大家好吃好喝的好生招待他，不成想他也热情似火代表着亲戚提了许多在他看来很有建设性的意见，可惜大家忙里忙外的都没注意到，也有的觉得那二傻废话连篇不当会事，结果坏了，他发火了，弄的大家都悻悻然．
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:09
http://club3.kdnet.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=1&id=6559209
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:10
＂很不幸, 奥巴马总统, 事实上, 我是中国人.＂
————————————————————————————————
一、很不幸, 我是中国人；（自卑）
二、奥巴马总统碰到了不该碰到或惹不起的人：中国人。（自大）
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:10
极度的自卑导致的莫名其妙的自大。结论：精神分裂。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:10
＂很不幸, 奥巴马总统, 事实上, 我是中国人.＂
————————————————————————————————
不幸是指奥巴马总统遇上中国记者了，人家明明要韩国记者提问。你跑上来不幸是个什么意思，指韩国记者没你中国记者能干？还是骂奥巴马出门没看对地方，说了不该说的话了？
就算抢话筒，第一句话也应该是：sorry !之类的话吧。
作者: admin 时间: 2010-11-14 17:11
芮成钢说的“很不幸”，是个幽默词，因为人家指名要南朝鲜记者，仅此而已。这和自卑扯不上关系，不过这和看“红楼梦”是一样的，每个人都会产生不同的联想。现场氛围非常重要，只有当事人的解说才比较切合实际。过去数十年，中国人的个性快要磨灭了，以致在国际场合极少能听到看到中国人的表演。其实芮的提问和表现还是中规中矩的，但即使如此，还是让一些人受不了啦！
曾经有人向温总扔过皮鞋，这次芮成钢如果能够一样扔一次，又如何？矫枉过正。即便代表亚洲说话，那也是到时候了，何况芮没有把人家当外人，大家都在亚洲区内，你不提我提，有什么不可以？
只有自己荒淫的人才会把红楼梦当成淫书来读。只有内心自卑的人才会从芮的提问中读出那种所谓的自卑来。
| 欢迎光临 传媒教育网 (http://47.106.15.148/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |