There is a tendency that news reports in the media focus on problems and emergencies rather than positive developments. Some people think that it is harmful to the individual and to the society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
题目大意
媒体新闻报道趋向于关注问题和突发状况而不是积极发展。有观点认为这对人们和社会有消极影响，你是否同意。
思路解析
对个人和社会的危害性并不真正来自于新闻媒体对于这种问题和突发事件的关注。
很难评估只关注社会黑暗面的新闻是否有害。这场争论引发的所谓“危害性”在个人和整个社会中都是猜测和模棱两可的。没有证据表明这种类型的信息传递是否会直接或间接损害身体状况。社会的进步也不能仅仅因为在报纸或电视上看到太多的负面新闻而被阻止。说负面报道会对精神造成损害也是可笑的。心理问题或社会的悲观思想从来不会在阅读过程之后立即出现-即使可能会出现悲伤或坏情绪，我们又如何能果断地将这些日常反应归类为“有害”的那一组呢？
在媒体功能与其可能带来的后果之间的因果关系方面，主题中列出的思维也误导了公众。的确，新闻媒体应该做的是客观地传递它能看到的东西，而不是偏向于光明或黑暗的一面，但这并不意味着只关注一边的片面就会有害。即使有可能出现所谓的“伤害”--可能是个人的郁闷、社会的恐慌等等，也不能怪报道本身，因为伤害人的是真相本身，而不是载体。这样的逻辑意味着，无论何时，只要通过任何媒介了解到这些类型的信息，接收者无论如何都会感到有害；永远不应该认为载体是这件事的罪魁祸首。
审题，找出关键词/限定词
focus on problems and emergencies rather than positive developments 出现的现象是只关注积极发展而没有关注问题和突发情况。
Harmful, 从是否有harmful 讨论到即便有是否是新闻播报的错
提纲
写作示范
I would argue how the claim absurdly links the media’s focus on social problems and emergencies with the harmful effects on the public and society.
It is hard to assess whether the news that only focuses on the dark side of the society is harmful or not. The so-called “harmfulness” elicited by the argument is highly speculative and ambiguous enough among both individuals and the social community at large. No evidence could be provided on whether this type of information delivery can directly or indirectly harm physical conditions. Nor can the social advance be precluded just by seeing too much negative news reported on newspapers or televisions. To say negative coverage is mentally damageable is also hilarious. Mental problems or the pessimistic ideology of society never come immediately after the reading process—even though there may emerge sorrows or bad moods, how can we decisively categorize those daily reactions into the cohort of “harmfulness”?
The thinking listed in the topic also misleads the public in terms of the causality between media function and the following consequences it may bring about. Indeed, what the news media should do is to objectively deliver what it can see without leaning onto either the brighter or darker side, but that doesn’t mean the lopsidedness that focuses only on one side would be harmful. Even if there is any possibility that the so-called “harm”—probably the glumness of individual, the social panic, etc.—emerges, the coverage per se is not to blame, because what hurts people is the truth itself but not the carriers. Such logic implies that receivers feel harmful anyway whenever learning about those types of information through whatever media; the carrier should never be considered as the culprit of this.
In conclusion, I would agree that the news report focuses overwhelmingly on reporting bad news is not the reason leading to harmfulness to the public; cruxes should be meticulously measured when we examine the causality.
