- •Язык профессионального общения:
- •Starter activity
- •Reading one
- •Moral Re-armament: History and Challenges
- •1. Give definitions of the following words and word-combinations, make use of a dictionary. Reproduce the situations they are used in the text.
- •Reading two Britain’s Moral Crisis
- •Starter activity
- •Reading one What Makes People Volunteer
- •Speech activities
- •Reading two
- •Nurse Nicky Nears Her Peak of Fitness
- •Reading one Who Uses Drugs and Why?
- •2. Check and compare your answers with your partner. Language Focus
- •Reading two
- •Europe: Drugs – Adapting To New Realities
- •Reading three
- •They're toking up for algebra class. Teenagers need incentives to keep it clean
- •Reading four
- •Partnering Against Trafficking
- •Discussion
- •Imagine you are the head of a Charity Fund. Write a report about the charity activities your fund is performing. Functional vocabulary
- •Phrases related to the topic
- •Speech Functions Bank
- •I. Interrupting People
- •Reading One Status of Women
- •Status of women and girls around the world: facts and figures (provided by the Global Fund for Women)
- •Violence
- •Insert prepositions or particles where necessary.
- •Reading two Schoolbooks and the female stereotype
- •Reading One The Qualities to Look for in a Wife
- •Reading two What’s wrong with marrying for Love
- •Reading three
- •I’m your Equal, Partner!
- •Is your relationship out of balance? Scared to stick up for yourself? It's time for a change
- •Imagine you are having a row with your male partner/husband. Work in pairs and try to make it up with the help of the Five r’s.
- •Reading One Careers and Marriage
- •1. Explain the meaning of the word combinations used in the text:
- •3. What practical tips for having a stable and fruitful marriage were given in the text? Discuss them in pairs. Reading two They'll Never Go Home Again
- •1. Answer the questions:
- •Reading three The Frustrated Housewife
- •Insert a preposition or a particle where necessary.
- •Interview several working and staying-at-home mothers about their attitude to the problems raised in the text. Present the findings of your questionnaires in class and analyse the results together.
- •Role-play. Discuss the problem.
- •General Discussion
- •Phrases related to the topic
- •I. Asking for and Giving Opinions
- •2. Use appropriate language from the boxes above to ask for and give opinions in the following situations.
- •2. Explaining and Justifying
- •1. Make the following into statements explaining and justifying using the language from the box above.
- •2. Use appropriate language from the box above to make statements explaining and justifying in the following situations.
- •1. Asking for Clarification
- •2. Giving Clarification
- •1. Make the following into questions and statements asking for and giving clarification.
- •2. Ask for and give clarification in the following situations.
- •1. Make the following into statements of agreement and disagreement using the language in the boxes above.
- •Reading one Censorship Debate
- •Insert particles or prepositions where necessary. Translate the sentences into Russian/Belarusian.
- •Reading two bbc Chiefs Order Tough Curb on tv Sex and Violence
- •Reading three
- •Is Film Censorship Necessary?
- •Insert particles or prepositions where necessary. Translate the sentences into Russian/Belarusian.
- •Reading four Censorship – What and by Whom?
- •Insert particles or prepositions where necessary. Translate the sentences into Russian/Belarusian.
- •Reading two
- •Public Concerns
- •Did he follow this pattern? ________
- •Reading three Paying the Price for News
- •Functional vocabulary
- •Phrases related to the topic
- •The power of the media Speech Functions Bank
- •I. Expressing Preferences
- •II. Talking about likes and Interests.
- •Starter activity
- •Reading one Ten Ways to find the best schools
- •Bruce Kemble. News Week. 2002 Language focus
- •A Whitehall checklist;
- •Speech activities
- •Reading two Slimmed-down School Curriculum Aims to Free Quarter of Timetable for Pupils Aged 11 to 14
- •Reading three High-Stakes Games
- •Reading four
- •5 Times More Florida Kids to Repeat Third Grade State's New Policy Links Promotion to Reading Test Scores
- •Reading one Why Parents Choose to Opt out of State System
- •In the following sentences use the right particle with the verb to put:
- •Reading two
- •Reading three The City – as- School
- •Imagine that a friend of yours is considering sending his/her child to a non-government school (institute) you are working in. Write a letter either encouraging or discouraging him/her.
- •Reading one Survey Results Detail What Top Entry Level Employers Want Most
- •Reading two Employers Still Prefer Traditional Degrees Over Online Learning, Study Finds
- •Insert prepositions or particles where necessary.
- •In groups of 3 or 4 prepare and stage a debate on the prospects of online learning. For more ideas read the supplementary texts and visit the relevant web sites.
- •Reading three Two in Three Trainee Teachers who Qualify 'Are not up to the Job'
- •Functional vocabulary
- •Phrases related to the topic
- •Speech Functions Bank
- •1. Asking for More Detailed Information
- •1. Make the following into questions or statements asking for more detailed information using the language in the box above.
- •2. Use appropriate language from the box above to ask for more detailed information in the following situations.
- •2. Making Comparisons
- •1. Make the following into statements of comparison using the language in the box above.
- •2. Use appropriate language from the box above to make statements of comparison about the following.
- •3. Making generalisations
- •2. Use appropriate language from the box above to make generalisations about the following.
Reading one Censorship Debate
UCLA – University of California at Los Angeles
ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union
While US media censorship has gained recent attention as a result of Janet Jackson’s exposure on live television, and the careful attention to what information is aired in terms of the Iraq war, censorship is no new issue. Censorship laws within the media have existed for decades, gaining specificity and stringency as an apparent need shows itself. However laws on censorship do not end the battle over their necessity. Opposing sides continually pose the costs versus the benefits of censorship within the media, specifically the news media. The debate seems to center around the same general theme: censorship practices are beneficial to the public interest.
However, this debate branches into several different subtopics, dependent upon which side of the debate is tackling the issue.
First, those who are opposed to US censorship practices typically claim the First Amendment or the right to free speech as a basis for their argument against censorship in general. As stated by the National Coalition against Censorship, “Freedom of communication is the indispensable condition of a healthy democracy. In a pluralistic society it would be impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas.” In effect, they are stating that the First Amendment rights are a necessary element of the democracy because of the inability to create one map of correct values for a society.
Furthermore, a concern is stated for any infringement on these First Amendment rights because of the “chilling effect” they seem to cause. According to Julie Hilden, a “Find Law” columnist and experienced attorney, Congress is extending the blame to and imposing censorship mandates on parties who have no fault in the incident. In effect, Congress is not only violating First Amendment rights, but punishing those who violate the rules they imposed despite the amendment, and punishing those surrounding the issue, despite their lack of involvement or fault.
However, the opposing camp cites the argument that the Constitution is up for interpretation, and that the First Amendment’s statement of free speech may not be as black and white as it seems. This party claims that conflict is found when the Constitution is read too literally, and that it is being taken advantage of today by those who push for more civil freedoms. In fact, according to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA professor specializing in the First Amendment, its original form, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to push their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable,” was not accepted; it shows that complete freedom within the media from censorship was not the intent of Congress.
Another need for censorship cited by those in support of government controls is that censorship is needed for the protection of troops abroad. The damage possible by not censoring the media can be seen through the example of Geraldo Rivera and his leak of military locations. By drawing a map of military locations, he potentially put them at risk for attack by insurgent forces.
However, critics of such censorship claim that the government may use such policies to assuage the public’s view of the severity of the war, and in effect deprives them from the truth. According to David Swanson, a Philadelphia inquirer reporter and photographer for Echo Company during the war, “The poverty of images has removed death from the war; it’s war, whether you agree to it or not … death needs to be shown. A country needs to be reminded that an 18-year-old has just died, and that Memorial and Veterans’ days are not just days for picnics at the beach.”
Also, those opposed to such censorship claim that government controls information into and out of Iraq, by means of controlling which journalists are cleared to report from there, and what information they release. They say that journalists not cleared by the government risk their own lives, as proven by the fact that more journalists have been killed in 14 months in Iraq than in the whole of the Vietnam War. In effect, they (the government and the media) are presenting an untrue view of the war to those they approve for reporting, and putting the lives of those who report independently in danger.
Finally, the issue of censorship becomes a battleground when considering media censorship and its effect on youth. Proponents of censorship cite that the news media and their possible use of harsh language or images may be detrimental to the values instilled in children by their parents. This is specifically true in terms of Internet news and Internet search engines that display questionable material for youths. Not only do they stress that search engines often re-route visitors to sites of questionable morals, despite how specifically academic the request for information, but that news items censored on television are available online. For example, photos of flag-draped coffins that cannot be published are widely circulated on the Internet.
However, the opposing side cites that such information is critical to youths in search of news and information. While the Internet may have some unreliable sources and questionable sites, the greater danger is in censoring all information as a result. For, as stated by the ACLU, “Without free and unfettered access to the Internet, this exciting new medium could become, for many Americans, little more than a G-rated television network.” In effect, children would be handed what to think by the base of sites available instead of allowed free thinking and access to information.
As you may see, there is no consensus on the issue of censorship and the news media. While some laws do exist, it is moreover a question of personal and company ethics when it comes to making a decision whether to air certain material as it is, or with editing. Regardless, journalistic ethics are questionable in either decision. Are you protecting by censoring, or harming? Is there any right answer?
by Katie O’Connor
Censorship Debate, 2006
Language focus
Highlight the following word combinations used in the text and explain their meaning:
to air information;
the First Amendment;
to tackle the issue;
indispensable condition;
pluralistic society;
“chilling effect”;
bulwarks of liberty;
insurgent forces;
inquirer reporter;
flag-draped coffins;
G-rated television network.
Guess the words from their definitions:
acting contrary to or in defiance of smth (esp. another’s rights);
being deprived of one’s rights;
easing or lessening smth;
having authorization to exercise one’s job;
a supporter of an idea;
having harmful and damaging effect;
smth deeply ingrained, planted;
smth which is uncertain, doubtful or indecent;
smth free and unrestricted.