【推荐3】In February, the publishing company Puffin released (发行) new editions of some books by Roald Dahl that had been edited to remove or replace rude language. Dahl’s original work included terms that were once considered acceptable but that many people today find upsetting, such as describing characters as “fat” and “ugly”. Puffin said it changed those words and others so the books “can continue to be enjoyed by all.” Many people argued against the move, however, saying it amounted to censorship (bans on people’s ideas or language). Others say it’s good to remove outdated and hurtful language. What do you think? Should publishers revise old books?

Yes — times and language change. Society’s values are always changing. What would have been acceptable to say or do 50 years ago might not be OK anymore. People are right to point out when somebody says something hurtful, so the same should apply to books with rude language. A careful editor is able to successfully remove words or terms that upset people without changing what originally created by the author. The most important thing is that children (and adults) read books — and lots of them. Any minor changes to the text that make Dahl’s — or another writer’s--stories more accessible and inclusive are a good thing.

No — books should be left as they are. Censorship is dangerous because it limits what a person can say or how they express themselves. If we allow people to censor one author’s work, what’s to stop them from doing the same to every author’s work in the future? If somebody disagrees with an opinion or is angered by an idea, it doesn’t mean no one else should hear it. A healthy society hugs many different beliefs and points of view. If some people find certain words or descriptions upsetting, the best approach isn’t to ban or change them but to discuss, debate, and make people aware of why the material is hurtful. It can help people learn and understand.

【推荐1】The role of media historically has been central to the making of society and the construction of identity. It is vital in the search for information, stories and art to feed the human spirit and imagination to overcome the challenges ahead.

In an age of false news and misinformation, good quality content is more valuable than ever. History provides some context. In the UK the development of the liberal(自由的)media prior to the 1950s was characterized by a clear hierarchy(等级)when it came to the control of information. This model eventually gave way to a popular, audience-driven mass media in the 1980s, when the idea of the media as a source of popular pleasure took root.

Today, as more content is distributed via social platforms and the division between content creators and content consumers is unclear, technology companies — or “super competitors” — are taking greater responsibility for guaranteeing the quality and integrity of information. Perhaps as a reaction to this and with an odd nod to pre-1950s paternalism(家长式管理), there is a rising call for governments and regulators to take a more active role in the production and spreading of news to ensure equitable access to information.

Access to or quality of content is better than ever. But while destination media compete to become leaders in their specific areas, the tech giants are working out how to use media to dominate time, spend and data. What will be the impact of the strategies of the tech giants on the overall media landscape? The poet and novelist, Ben Okri, writes, “It may well be that it is not only science that saves us. We may also be saved by laughter, by the optimism of being able to see beyond these times, with stories, with community, with songs.”

In the absence of real contact, interaction and the consumption of experience is now mostly mediated(调解). The value and integrity of media has never been more relevant and significant.

【推荐3】By now, it is pretty well understood that we regularly pay for things in ways other than using money. Sometimes we pay sill with cash. But we also pay for things with data, and more often, with our time and attention. We effectively hand over access to our minds in exchange for something “fee”， like email, streaming video or online shopping pages. As opposed to “paying” attention, we actually “spend attention”， agreeing to the view ads in exchange for something we really want.

The centrality of that deal in our lives makes it unacceptable that there are companies who seize our time and attention for absolutely nothing in exchange, and indeed, without permission at all-otherwise known as “attention theft”.

Attention theft happens anywhere you find your time and attention taken without permission, like the new, targeted advertising screens in hospital waiting rooms, the airlines that play full-volume advertising from a screen right in front of your face, or the advertising - screens in office elevators. These are just few examples in what is a growing category. Combined, they threaten to make us live life in a screen-lined cocoon(茧)，shrunken and incapable of independent thought.

Then, what makes it “theft”?Advances in neuroscience over the last several decades make it clear that our brain’s resources are unconsciously triggered(触发)by sound and movement;therefore the screens seize rare mental resources. Meanwhile, in the law, theft is typically defined as the taking control of a resource “under such circumstances as to acquire the major part of its economic value or benefit. ” Given the established market value of time and attention, when taken without permission or compensation, it really is not much different from someone taking money out of your pocket. Thus, when the firms selling public-screen advertising to target audiences brag of rapid growth and billions in profit, those are actually earnings made by stealing from us.