Name: 媒體與傳播：言論自由與凝聚力 I 2025 年研究員節 (Media & Comms: Free Speech vs Cohesion I Fellows Festival 2025)
Uploaded: 2025-07-19T19:34:09.000Z
Duration: 49 min 14 s

Welcome back everybody. Quick refresh, quick change of panel. I hope you are having a great day and lots to think about for those of you who are in the room with Baroness

歡迎大家回來。快速刷新，快速更換小組。我希望大家今天過得愉快，與男爵夫人同在會議室的各位也有很多事情要思考。

轉承詞

Hilary Armstrong as a result of her remarks. I think actually feeding quite nicely to this next session, given the story she told me about pushback from Facebook groups and how social media has been interacting with her work in the real world I thought was very interesting. So this is our Fellows Festival panel discussion on arguably one of the most pressing and complex issues and questions of our time when it comes to social cohesion.

希拉里-阿姆斯特朗（Hilary Armstrong）的發言。我認為她的發言與下一環節的討論相得益彰，因為她告訴了我關於 Facebook 群組的反擊以及社交媒體如何與她在現實世界中的工作產生互動的故事，我認為這非常有趣。這就是我們的研究員節小組討論，討論的主題可以說是我們這個時代在社會凝聚力方面最緊迫、最複雜的問題之一。

情態副詞

In an era of deep polarisation set against a backdrop of breakneck change in our media landscape how can freedom of speech help rather than hinder the connections between us? What is the balance between free speech and social cohesion? Even the debate around freedom of speech is polarised and politicised. It's on the front page, I don't know if you've seen the copy of The Economist this week but they're leading on it this week. Given rocket boosters of course by JD Vance's accusation that in Europe and specifically here in the UK it's under threat. So what are the biggest challenges to free speech in the UK? What kind of institutions, cultures and practices do we need to support a truly open yet cohesive society? The challenge has been laid bare by the Director General of the BBC this week when he said Britain's status as a cohesive democratic society is at risk for the first time in a generation as the rise of social media platforms and disinformation fuel a trust crisis. So it is clearly actually at the very heart of what we've been discussing in all of our panels today. We've got a really provocative and insightful panel to take us through it. Baroness Clare Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas which for more than 20 years has been committed to organising free and open public debates.

在一個兩極分化嚴重的時代，在我們的媒體環境發生急劇變化的背景下，言論自由如何才能幫助而不是阻礙我們之間的聯繫？言論自由與社會凝聚力之間的平衡點是什麼？即使是關於言論自由的辯論也是兩極分化和政治化的。我不知道你們是否看過本週的《經濟學人》，但他們本週的頭版頭條就是這個問題。當然，JD-萬斯指責在歐洲，特別是在英國，自由受到了威脅，這也為自由提供了火箭助推器。那麼，在英國，言論自由面臨的最大挑戰是什麼？我們需要什麼樣的制度、文化和實踐來支持一個真正開放而又有凝聚力的社會？英國廣播公司（BBC）的總幹事本週將這

Clare's a former MEP, public intellectual, who's long championed freedom expression and open debate. Myriam Francois, on the end there, writer, broadcaster and academic whose work has appeared on the BBC, Al Jazeera and others. She also has her own programme on YouTube, The T, you explore race, identity, free speech throughout your work Myriam, thank you for joining us. And Stephen Sacker, veteran journalist and former host of the BBC's

克萊爾是前歐洲議會議員，公共知識分子，長期倡導言論自由和公開辯論。邁里亞姆-弗朗索瓦（Myriam Francois）是一位作家、播音員和學者，她的作品曾出現在英國廣播公司（BBC）、半島電視臺（Al Jazeera）等媒體上。她還在 YouTube 上開設了自己的節目 "The T"，您在作品中探討了種族、身份、言論自由等問題，謝謝您的參與。斯蒂芬-薩克（Stephen Sacker），資深記者，前英國廣播公司（BBC）節目主持人。

Our Talk programme which is, will be one of the things that we're talking to him about of course, which was of course famous for its in-depth and news-making interviews with global leaders. So whether it's policemen door-knocking over someone's tweet, the spread of disinformation during the summer riots, cancel culture, debate over legitimate protest on our streets, it feels a pretty febrile time. So let's just get a take on where our panel think we're at, and I'll just start with you Clare.

我們的 "訪談 "節目當然也是我們要和他討論的話題之一，該節目因其對全球領導人的深入採訪和新聞報道而聞名。是以，無論是警察因某人的推特而敲門，還是夏季騷亂期間虛假資訊的傳播、取消文化、關於街頭合法抗議的爭論，都讓人感覺這是一個相當熱鬧的時期。所以，讓我們來看看我們的小組認為我們現在處於什麼階段，我就從克萊爾你開始吧。

So I think on this point, and maybe only on this point, I agree with JD Vance. I mean

是以，我認為在這一點上，也許僅僅在這一點上，我同意 JD Vance 的觀點。我是說

I do think there is a serious problem of free speech and I was interested in The Economist of all magazines or publications coming out and saying that there's a problem of free speech and that actually, or rather there's a problem in the attacks on free speech and this is the most important thing The Economist said, which is it said that hate speech, once it's treated by law, actually is an attack on people's freedom to think aloud, to openly ask questions, and that that's a real problem. Because one of the things that's most extraordinary is that people will say to me, oh you just want free speech so that you can spout hate speech, and that is in a way what's happened is free speech itself has become part of the culture wars and if you're a free speecher, you're seen as somehow a bit dodgy. And then if you think about the definition, and I won't monopolise because I'm dying to hear from the others, but when you think about what constitutes hate speech, we might all think we can agree that we don't want to hear this kind of speech until you discover that if you put up a social media post welcoming the Supreme Court's clarification on the distinction between biological sex and gender, that you're accused of celebrating transphobic hate speech.

我確實認為存在著嚴重的言論自由問題，而且我對《經濟學人》這類雜誌或刊物站出來說存在著言論自由問題很感興趣，實際上，或者說存在著攻擊言論自由的問題，這是《經濟學人》所說的最重要的一點，即它說仇恨言論一旦被法律處理，實際上就是對人們大聲思考、公開提問的自由的攻擊，這是一個真正的問題。因為最特別的一點是，人們會對我說，哦，你只是想要言論自由，這樣你就可以發表仇恨言論了，而這在某種程度上已經發生了，言論自由本身已經成為文化戰爭的一部分，如果你是一個言論自由者，你就會被視為有點可疑。然後，如果你思考一下仇恨言論的定

And they think, no actually I was just saying that I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision.

他們會想，不，實際上我只是說我同意最高法院的決定。

And so any number of things, 30 people a day are arrested for speech crimes in this country, that's a hell of a lot in a free society, and it makes you worry that we're not so free.

在這個國家，每天有 30 人因言論犯罪而被捕，這在一個自由的社會里實在是太多了，讓人不禁擔心我們並不那麼自由。

Well I agree with loads that Claire has just said, I think free speech is one of those things, I mean if you said you were against free speech, you would I think find very little support in a room, and that would be quite right, because who would want to be against free speech, the idea itself sounds like it's a fundamentally important part of sort of human society.

我同意克萊爾剛才所說的內容，我認為言論自由是其中之一，我的意思是，如果你說你反對言論自由，我想你會發現在一個房間裡很少有人支持你，這是很正確的，因為誰會想反對言論自由，這個想法本身聽起來就像是人類社會的一個重要組成部分。

So I'm fundamentally pro-free speech, am I an absolutist?

所以我從根本上支持言論自由，難道我是絕對主義者嗎？

Probably not, because in most things in life I tend through experience and my own sort of reading and reflection, believe that the extremes aren't really the best places to occupy, I tend to think most issues in the end defy binary solutions, simplistic solutions, and therefore I don't really buy the idea that there is a sort of line that one can draw between free speech and unacceptable hate speech or incitement, I think there are lots of grey areas and then we human beings have to use our intelligence, our sensitivity to try and navigate through them.

也許不會，因為在生活中的大多數事情上，我傾向於通過經驗和自己的閱讀與反思，認為極端並不是最好的選擇，我傾向於認為大多數問題最終都無法用二元對立的方法、簡單化的方法來解決，是以我不太相信在自由言論與不可接受的仇恨言論或煽動行為之間存在某種界限，我認為有很多灰色地帶，然後我們人類必須用我們的智慧、我們的敏感性來嘗試並穿越它們。

I think because that's quite nuanced, law is a very difficult thing to use to approach that problem, so nonetheless we have to try and do it, you know as a society we'd have to make sure that while we keep free speech as free as possible, we do not license people to incite hate, to defy the truth in a way that actually is damaging, whether it be with absolutely false medical information, which you know pollutes the debate about vaccines or anything else, so it's a long-winded way of saying I don't like using the law unless it's absolutely necessary, I think when it comes to inciting violence it is necessary, but I spent five years of my life as a journalist in the United States, I like the First Amendment,

我認為，因為這個問題很微妙，法律是很難用來解決這個問題的，所以儘管如此，我們還是必須嘗試去做，你知道，作為一個社會，我們必須確保在儘可能保持言論自由的同時，我們不允許人們煽動仇恨，以一種實際上具有破壞性的方式蔑視真相、我想說的是，除非絕對必要，否則我不喜歡使用法律，我認為當涉及到煽動暴力時，使用法律是必要的，但我在美國做了五年記者，我喜歡第一修正案、

I like as much freedom as possible, and so while recognising the nuance that's where

我喜歡儘可能多的自由，是以在認識到細微差別的同時

Thank you, I'm probably just going to build a bit because you've said a lot of things that I really fundamentally agree with, but I think the issue of free speech is part of a wider civil liberties crisis that has been revealed to us most profoundly over the last 20 months, through the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the reality of the people's attempts to object to that in various capacities, you know amongst them of course has been you know huge criminalisation of people expressing sentiments online, which we've already touched on, and beyond that the criminalisation of protest, which hopefully I think we'll also talk about.

謝謝你，我可能要再補充一點，因為你說了很多我從根本上同意的東西，但我認為言論自由問題是更廣泛的公民自由危機的一部分，在過去的 20 個月裡，我們已經深刻地認識到了這一點、在過去的 20 個月裡，我們最深刻地感受到了這一危機：加沙正在進行的種族滅絕，以及人們試圖以各種方式反對種族滅絕的現實，當然，其中包括對在網上表達情感的人進行嚴厲的刑事定罪，我們已經談到了這一點，除此之外，還有對抗議的刑事定罪，我希望我們也能談到這一點。

I think what's been very interesting has been looking at the ways in which certain laws that were allegedly designed to protect minorities from hate speech have in many cases been used actually as a baton to beat them with, and so it's very interesting to me to take concrete examples in this regard, so a black person on Twitter who'd used the n-word for example being interrogated by two white police officers about their use of that word in relation to another black person.

我認為非常有趣的是，某些據稱旨在保護少數群體免受仇恨言論侵害的法律，在很多情況下實際上卻被用來作為毆打他們的警棍，是以，在這方面舉一些具體的例子對我來說非常有趣，例如，一個在推特上使用了 "N "字的黑人被兩名白人警察盤問，詢問他們是否對另一個黑人使用了這個詞。

To your point about who gets to decide what is and isn't within you know a form of hate speech, you know Maria Hussein, a teacher who had attended a protest holding a placard talking about coconuts in reference to a political identity of people who are upholding forms of white supremacy despite being of an ethnic minority background, has been the subject of a police investigation, she's lost her job, she has been through hell and back, she's had people turning up at her door over a tweet.

關於誰來決定什麼是仇恨言論，你知道瑪麗亞-侯賽因（Maria Hussein）是一名教師，她參加了一次抗議活動，舉著一個標語牌，上面寫著椰子，而她的政治身份是維護白人至上主義，儘管她是少數民族。

So there are massive issues to do with free speech, not just to do with Palestine, but

是以，存在著大量與言論自由有關的問題，不僅與巴勒斯坦有關，還與

I think the Palestine issue has really revealed to us the depths in which we've fallen.

我認為，巴勒斯坦問題確實讓我們看到了我們所墮落的深淵。

Okay, and it's important at that point to say of course the use of the word genocide has been a matter of debate in Parliament, it has been rejected by this government.

好吧，在這一點上必須指出的是，使用種族滅絕一詞當然是議會辯論的一個問題，但已被本屆政府否決。

I mean they have zero authority, 500 RAF flights to provide weapons, 2 million people starving to death as we speak.

我的意思是，他們的權力為零，500 架皇家空軍飛機提供武器，就在我們說話的時候，200 萬人正在餓死。

I'm also moderating this from a point of view, a neutral point of view on the language that is used.

我也是站在一箇中立的角度來看待所使用的語言。

So when a genocide has been defined as such by over 200 genocide experts, I'm afraid the government does not have the moral authority to go and speak over that, they do not.

是以，當 200 多名種族滅絕問題專家已將種族滅絕定義為種族滅絕時，恐怕政府沒有道德權威去對此發表意見，他們沒有。

I'm simply providing the backdrop to this conversation, Claire.

我只是為這次談話提供背景，克萊爾。

Well listen, I actually think it's a good example of why free speech is difficult.

聽著，其實我覺得這是一個很好的例子，說明為什麼言論自由很難。

One of the things that happens is people say I believe in free speech for me and my tribe, but not for thee and your tribe.

其中一種情況是，人們說我相信我和我的部落有言論自由，但你和你的部落沒有。

Now as it happens, I am on the absolute, no I'm not disagreeing with you just on this bit.

現在，我的觀點是絕對的，不，我不是不同意你的觀點，只是在這一點上。

I totally and profoundly disagree with you on the use of the term genocide, but I'm not trying to stop you saying it.

我完全不同意你使用 "種族滅絕 "這個詞，但我並不想阻止你這麼說。

I completely am on the other side in relation to the war in Gaza, I know, but.

我知道，在加沙戰爭問題上，我完全站在另一方。

沒有任何一方，只有種族滅絕。

Hang on a minute, sorry, I am quite used to moderating spiky conversations.

等一下，對不起，我已經習慣了主持尖銳的對話。

Just let Claire finish, because this is actually what we're on about effectively.

讓克萊爾把話說完吧，因為這才是我們真正要討論的。

Exactly, no, but we're on different sides.

沒錯，沒有，但我們站在不同的立場上。

Just hold on, we are and we'll cope and the audience will cope with working out, listening to both of us, what we think about various things.

只要堅持住，我們就能應付自如，觀眾也能應付自如，聽我們倆說說我們對各種事情的看法。

Where I get nervous is when somebody else, I'm glad that we've got you moderating this debate, but I do not generally want somebody to moderate in such a way as that that conversation can't happen, because it's very important.

我感到緊張的地方是，當別人，我很高興我們有你來主持這場辯論，但我一般不希望有人以這樣的方式來主持，以至於對話無法進行，因為這是非常重要的。

So you use the example, Mariam, of the coconut tweet.

瑪麗亞姆，你以椰子推文為例。

I thought it was beyond distasteful to call somebody a coconut because of the colour of their skin and they had the wrong political views and they had a placard.

我認為，因為一個人的膚色，一個人的政治觀點錯誤，一個人舉著標語牌，就說他是椰子，這實在是太令人討厭了。

I despised it, but I defended their use of it and I condemned the attempt at getting that person sent to prison.

我鄙視這種做法，但我為他們的做法辯護，我譴責他們企圖把那個人送進監獄。

You have to say, I support free speech for those people whose views I find abhorrent, obnoxious and so on.

你必須說，我支持那些我認為其觀點令人憎惡和厭惡的人的言論自由。

So then we get on to, just one tiny bit, I think that we should have very tightly drawn laws on inciting violence, but I think that we have to be very careful about the notion of a law that says we shouldn't incite hate, because the notion of what is hateful is so subjective and is therefore used to sweep up any range of opinions that you happen to disagree with.

我認為我們應該對煽動暴力制定非常嚴格的法律，但我認為我們必須非常謹慎地對待 "我們不應該煽動仇恨 "的法律概念，因為 "什麼是仇恨 "的概念非常主觀，是以會被用來橫掃你碰巧不同意的各種觀點。

Thank you very much indeed, and I think that just took us, even this in that exchange took us to the heart of why this is such a difficult question.

真的非常感謝，我認為這只是把我們，甚至在交流中把我們帶到了為什麼這是一個如此困難的問題的核心。

It was a beautiful illustration, I think, of why we need to listen to each other and people can sit on a panel and have absolutely very different opinions about, you know, said issue, but as long as they are given the freedom to make their points, they can leave the room still deeply disagreeing with each other, but hopefully some light as well as heat has been shed, and that's, you know, why free speech matters so much.

我認為，這是一個很好的例子，說明了為什麼我們需要互相傾聽，人們可以坐在一個小組裡，對你知道的，所說的問題有絕對不同的意見，但只要給他們自由來表達自己的觀點，他們可以離開房間時仍然深深地不同意對方的觀點，但希望一些光和熱已經灑下，這就是，你知道，為什麼言論自由如此重要。

And it's what you, well, I mean, you're both journalists and you're one of the most eloquent supporters of this sort of exchange at Clare.

而你，我是說，你們都是記者，而且你是克萊爾這種交流最有力的支持者之一。

I suppose the thing I need to sort of accelerate to, given the overarching theme of today, and that is that question of connection, is how this then exists in a space where, God knows, we need a path forward to cohesion, and I suppose actually there are very many institutions, cultures, ways and formats that we can look at to try to encourage that.

我想，鑑於今天的首要主題是 "聯繫 "問題，我需要加速解決的問題是，在我們需要一條通往凝聚力的道路的時候，這又是如何存在的。

Public service broadcasting is one of those arenas, Stephen.

公共服務廣播就是其中之一，斯蒂芬。

I just wonder, how do you marry that arena of free speech with a place where people can genuinely feel that they're all part of the same whole?

我只是想知道，如何將言論自由的舞臺與一個能讓人們真正感覺到他們是同一個整體的一部分的地方結合起來？

I mean, it's a really important question.

我的意思是，這是一個非常重要的問題。

I guess my fundamental approach to this is that, you know, I'm a journalist.

我想我對此的基本態度是，你知道，我是一名記者。

I hope to do other things in my life, but I've been a journalist a long time, and as a journalist, I don't think it's my job to feel that part of the remit is promote social cohesion.

我希望在我的一生中做其他事情，但我做記者已經很長時間了，作為一名記者，我不認為我的工作應該讓我覺得職責的一部分是促進社會凝聚力。

That's not really why I went into journalism, what I think my journalism is about.

這並不是我從事新聞工作的真正原因，也不是我認為我的新聞工作是關於什麼的。

One would like to live in a cohesive society, but if one doesn't live in a cohesive society, as a reporter, I have to report on that too.

人們希望生活在一個有凝聚力的社會中，但如果生活在一個沒有凝聚力的社會中，作為記者，我也必須對此進行報道。

So I think, you know, one needs to be clear about what the job of, you know, the journalist is, the media organisation.

是以，我認為，你知道，我們需要明確記者和媒體組織的工作是什麼。

It's not to build a society, it's to reflect a society, it's to be responsible, it's to have, you know, fundamental values like, you know, truth-telling, integrity, impartiality, trustworthiness, proving that honesty is a fundamental part of the remit of your journalism.

這不是為了建設一個社會，而是為了反映一個社會，是為了負責任，是為了擁有基本的價值觀，比如，你知道的，說真話、正直、公正、值得信賴，證明誠實是新聞工作的基本職責。

All of that really matters, but whether, you know, we have to take on board the notion that we are part of, you know, a society building exercise to make sure that everybody gets along with each other, I don't really feel that's where I've been or where I should be.

所有這些都很重要，但是，你知道，我們是否必須接受這樣一種觀念，即我們是社會建設的一部分，你知道，社會建設的目的是確保每個人都能和睦相處，我並不覺得這是我一直在做的事情，也不覺得這是我應該做的事情。

No, and I suppose that's very specifically about one's work as a journalist, but I suppose

不，我想這與記者的工作有很大關係，但我想

I was thinking about it in the broader sense of, you know, the BBC and its public service remit, the public service broadcasters in this country, I'm at ITN, ITV's one of them, and it's how these public service arenas exist and honour the sort of conflict of opinion and free speech, I suppose, is a question mark.

我是在更廣泛的意義上思考這個問題的，你知道，英國廣播公司（BBC）及其公共服務職責，這個國家的公共服務廣播公司，我在 ITN 工作，ITV 也是其中之一，這些公共服務領域是如何存在的，又是如何尊重意見衝突和言論自由的，我想，這是一個問號。

Briefly, Stephen, then I'll come back to Clare.

簡短地說，斯蒂芬，然後我再來找克萊爾。

I think the BBC in particular, but I'm sure you would say the same, Julia, at ITN, you know, you have a duty to reflect the huge diversity, range of opinions across the nation or indeed, you know, as I've worked a lot for the International BBC, across the world.

我認為英國廣播公司尤其如此，但我相信你也會這麼說，朱莉婭，在 ITN，你知道，你有責任反映巨大的多樣性，反映全國範圍內的各種觀點，甚至，你知道，我曾為英國廣播公司國際部工作過很長時間，反映世界各地的觀點。

You need to truly try to reflect the range of opinion that's out there and do it in a fair and responsible way.

你們需要真正努力反映各種意見，並以公平和負責任的方式進行。

And then I think the other thing that one has to say about media organisations is they have to be, as Tim Davy was saying the other day, they have to be trustworthy.

關於媒體機構，我認為還有一點不得不說，那就是，正如蒂姆-戴維（Tim Davy）前幾天所說，媒體機構必須值得信賴。

You know, people have to believe that you go out, you fact find, you don't try and sort of twist the truth, manipulate the truth or distort what you see.

你知道，人們必須相信，你走出去，你發現事實，你不會試圖扭曲真相，操縱真相或歪曲你所看到的。

You bear witness and that element of being trustworthy is a hugely important pillar of a, you know, functional democratic society.

你是見證人，而值得信賴是一個正常運作的民主社會的重要支柱。

Which of course we know the BBC has lost over the Gaza issue because of the misinformation that has been spread around this issue.

當然，我們知道 BBC 在加沙問題上已經敗下陣來，因為圍繞這個問題散佈了錯誤的資訊。

Not least, of course, is the fact that whilst we can sit here and debate and argue over the word genocide, the reality is that there are two million people in Gaza right now who have not had any food, medical aid or clean water for the last 60 days, 60 days.

當然，最重要的是，儘管我們可以坐在這裡就種族滅絕一詞進行辯論和爭論，但現實情況是，加沙現在有 200 萬人在過去 60 天裡沒有得到任何食物、醫療援助或清潔水。

And there is no effort right now to break that.

現在還沒有任何努力來打破這一局面。

The fact that we would sit here and argue about the semantics of the language associated with that is the problem.

我們坐在這裡爭論與此相關的語言語義，這才是問題所在。

It's why people don't trust the BBC today.

這就是今天人們不相信 BBC 的原因。

It's also because in all reality, for those of us who worked inside on the BBC, there has been huge sedition on the inside because people are aware of efforts to meddle with editorial standards within the BBC when it comes to Palestine.

這也是因為在現實中，對於我們這些在英國廣播公司內部工作的人來說，內部一直存在著巨大的煽動性，因為人們意識到英國廣播公司內部在巴勒斯坦問題上試圖干預編輯標準。

There is a skewed narrative towards the Israeli perspective and a failure to hold

對以色列觀點的敘述有偏差，未能堅持以色列的立場。

Israeli officials to account to the same standard that we would any other government in the world that was actively extermination, exterminating a civilian population with nowhere to flee.

對於以色列官員，我們要像對待世界上任何其他政府一樣，用同樣的標準來要求他們，因為這些政府正在積極開展滅絕行動，滅絕無處可逃的平民。

We are not seeing that and that's where the lack of trust is coming.

我們沒有看到這一點，這就是缺乏信任的原因。

And the risk of that with regards to public broadcasting specifically is that we then have people turning to online sources that do not have a commitment to Ofcom, do not have a commitment to any form of impartiality and that they are then not actually seeing alternative perspectives at all, which of course the algorithm also doesn't help.

具體到公共廣播，這樣做的風險在於，人們會轉向那些沒有向通信管理局作出承諾、沒有對任何形式的公正性作出承諾的在線資源，他們實際上根本看不到其他的視角，當然，算法也無濟於事。

OK, well I'm really interested to talk about the algorithm.

I also have to say, of course, the BBC isn't here to answer for it.

當然，我還得說，英國廣播公司（BBC）並不能為此負責。

See, the thing is, there's lots that you just said, Miriam, and it'd be really interesting to have that debate because there's lots I agree with you on and there's lots I would pick up on.

你看，問題是，你剛才說了很多，米麗安，進行這樣的辯論真的很有意思，因為有很多我同意你的觀點，也有很多我會挑出毛病來。

I mean, I don't work for the BBC anymore, I used to until very recently, but I don't know that we should spend the entire debate talking specifically about that, but I would love to follow up.

我的意思是，我已經不在英國廣播公司工作了，我以前一直在英國廣播公司工作，直到最近，但我不知道我們是否應該在整個辯論中專門討論這個問題，但我很想跟進一下。

是啊，是啊，我們可以跟進，是的。

Well, I'm also keen that other people get a chance to ask questions and Clare just wanted to come in on that.

我也很希望其他人能有機會提問，克萊爾也想參與進來。

So, I think that you said, Stephen, a very important point when you said it's not up to the BBC to solve the problem of social cohesion because one of the things that makes me nervous is that actually public service broadcasters have started to act as though it is their job to resolve a range of political issues and I don't want them to start trying to think that they can resolve the issues in the Middle East either, by the way, that's not their job.

斯蒂芬，我認為你說的這一點非常重要，因為讓我感到緊張的一件事是，實際上公共服務廣播公司已經開始表現得好像他們的工作就是解決一系列政治問題，我也不希望他們開始試圖認為他們可以解決中東問題，順便說一句，那不是他們的工作。

You know, I don't care what we have as a civil society argue over and there's wars going on, it's up to public service broadcasters to reflect the debates.

你知道，我不在乎我們作為公民社會在爭論什麼，也不在乎戰爭正在進行，公共服務廣播公司有責任反映這些辯論。

What's happened is that actually, too often, broadcasters and the media in general say, oh, we're worried about the toxic, polarised atmosphere in society, so what we're going to do is to actually sideline certain voices in case it makes it worse because we want to contribute to social cohesion and it's like, well, don't do that because that's actually you trying to manipulate politically the outcome of your viewers' politics and that's not what your job's there to do.

現在的情況是，廣播公司和一般媒體經常會說：哦，我們擔心社會上出現有毒的、兩極分化的氣氛，所以我們要做的實際上是把某些聲音放在一邊，以防它使情況變得更糟，因為我們想為社會凝聚力做出貢獻。