A new era is upon us. Call it what you will: the service economy, the information age, the knowledge society. It all translates to a fundamental change in the way we work. Already we’re partly there. The percentage of people who earn their living by making things has fallen dramatically in the Western World. Today the majority of jobs in America, Europe and Japan (two thirds or more in many of these countries) are in the service industry, and the number is on the rise. More women are in the work force than ever before. There are more part-time jobs. More people are self-employed. But the breadth of the economic transformation can’t be measured by numbers alone, because it also is giving rise to a radical new way of thinking about the nature of work itself. Long-held notions about jobs and careers, the skills needed to succeed, even the relation between individuals and employers—all these are being challenged.
    We have only to look behind us to get some sense of what may lie ahead. No one looking ahead 20 years possibly could have foreseen the ways in which a single invention, the chip (集成块), would transform our world thanks to its applications in personal computers, digital communications and factory robots. Tomorrow’s achievements in biotechnology, artificial intelligence or even some still unimagined technology could produce a similar wave of dramatic changes. But one thing is certain: information and knowledge will become even more vital, and the people who possess it, whether they work in manufacturing or services, will have the advantage and produce the wealth. Computer knowledge will become as basic a requirement as the ability to read and write. The ability to solve problems by applying information instead of performing routine tasks will be valued above all else. If you cast your mind ahead 10 years, information services will be predominant. It will be the way you do your job.

    Beauty has always been regarded as something praiseworthy. Almost everyone thinks attractive people are happier and healthier, have better marriages and have more respectable occupations. Personal consultants give them better advice for finding jobs. Even judges are softer on attractive defendants (被告). But in the executive circle, beauty can become a liability.
    While attractiveness is a positive factor for a man on his way up the executive ladder, it is harmful to a woman.
    Handsome male executives were perceived as having more integrity than plainer men; effort and ability were thought to account for their success.
    Attractive female executives were considered to have less integrity than unattractive ones; their success was attributed not to ability but to factors such as luck.
    All unattractive women executives were thought to have more integrity and to be more capable than the attractive female executives. Interestingly, though, the rise of the unattractive overnight successes was attributed more to personal relationships and less to ability than was that of attractive overnight successes.
    Why are attractive women not thought to be able? An attractive woman is perceived to be more feminine (女性的) and an attractive man more masculine (男性的) than the less attractive ones. Thus, an attractive woman has an advantage in traditionally female jobs, but an attractive woman in a traditionally masculine position appears to lack the “masculine” qualities required.
    This is true even in politics. “When the only clue is how he or she looks, people treat men and women differently,” says Ann Bowman, who recently published a study on the effects of attractiveness on political candidates. She asked 125 undergraduates to rank two groups of photographs, one of men and one of women, in order of attractiveness. The students were told the photographs were of candidates for political offices. They were asked to rank them again, in the order they would vote for them.
    The results showed that attractive males utterly defeated unattractive men, but the women who had been ranked most attractive invariably received the fewest votes.

    The importance and focus of the interview in the work of the print and broadcast journalist is reflected in several books that have been written on the topic. Most of these books, as well as several chapters, mainly in, but not limited to, journalism and broadcasting handbooks and reporting texts, stress the “how to” aspects of journalistic interviewing rather than the conceptual aspects of the interview, its context, and implications. Much of the “how to” material is based on personal experiences and general impressions. As we know, in journalism as in other fields, much can be learned from the systematic study of professional practice. Such study brings together evidence from which broad generalized principles can be developed.
    There is, as has been suggested, a growing body of research literature in journalism and broadcasting, but very little significant attention has been devoted to the study of the interview itself. On the other hand, many general texts as well as numerous research articles on interviewing in fields other than journalism have been written. Many of these books and articles present the theoretical and empirical (经验的) aspects of the interview as well as the training of the interviewers. Unhappily, this plentiful general literature about interviewing pays little attention to the journalistic interview. The fact that the general literature on interviewing does not deal with the journalistic interview seems to be surprising for two reasons. First, it seems likely that most people in modern Western societies are more familiar, at least in a positive manner, with journalistic interviewing than with any other form of interviewing. Most of us are probably somewhat familiar with the clinical interview, such as that conducted by physicians and psychologists. In these situations the professional person or interviewer is interested in getting information necessary for the diagnosis (诊断) and treatment of the person seeking help. Another familiar situation is the job interview. However, very few of us have actually been interviewed personally by the mass media, particularly by television. And yet, we have a vivid acquaintance with the journalistic interview by virtue of our roles as readers, listeners, and viewers. Even so, true understanding of the journalistic interview, especially television interviews, requires thoughtful analyses and even study, as this book indicates.

    The relationship between the home and market economies has gone through two distinct stages. Early industrialization began the process of transferring some production processes (e.g. clothmaking, sewing and canning foods) from the home to the marketplace. Although the home economy could still produce these goods, the processes were laborious (费力的) and the market economy was usually more efficient. Soon, the more important second stage was evident-the marketplace began producing goods and services that had never been produced by the home economy, and the home economy was unable to produce them (e.g. Electricity and electrical appliances, the automobile, advanced education, sophisticated medical care). In the second stage, the question of whether the home economy was less efficient in producing these new goods and services was irrelevant; if the family were to enjoy these fruits of industrialization, they would have to be obtained in the marketplace. The traditional ways of taking care of these needs in the home, such as in nursing the sick, became socially unacceptable (and, in most serious cases, probably less successful).
    Just as the appearance of the automobile made the use of the horse-drawn carriage illegal and then impractical, and the appearance of television changed the radio from a source of entertainment to a source of background music, so most of the fruits of economic growth did not increase the options available to the home economy to either produce the goods or services or purchase them in the market. Growth brought with it increased variety in consumer goods, but not increased flexibility for the home economy in obtaining these goods and services. Instead, economic growth brought with it increased consumer reliance on the marketplace. In order to consume these new goods and services, the family had to enter the marketplace as wage earners and consumers. The neoclassical (新古典主义的) model that views the family as deciding whether to produce goods and services directly or to purchase them in the marketplace is basically a model of the first stage. It cannot accurately be applied to the second (and current) stage.

    If indeed silence is golden, it is also becoming as rare as gold. It seems that the progresses of man includes a rising volume of noise. (S1)In every home a stereo or television will fill the rooms sound, between (S2) sunrise and sunset, streets and highways are a constant source of voice from cars, buses, and trucks. You can pass any factory or (S3)construction area and the roar of their machinery will make your ears (S4)ringing. Music is played in every supermarket, most restaurants, and (S5)many offices, big cities of the world are well-known by their noisiness. (S6)
    Noise pollution is the new side effect of our technological age. Day or night, the sound of the work fills the air. It seems (S7) that the smoothing effects of silence are nowhere to be found.
    Even the quiet of our careful protected wilderness areas can be (S8)invaded at any moment by a passed jet. (S9)
    We are learning, finally, that silence is a natural resource and must be protected by law. It appears that we all find company in sound, if we all demand a little quiet from time to time. (S10)