#300 (經濟學人導讀 — 每週看圖). #第三百篇PO文 #每日一經濟學人 #英文學習 #國際時事 #週末精進…
By: Leon X The Economist
Tags: World War I, World War II, New York Times, Covid 19, The Economist

#第三百篇PO文 #每日一經濟學人 #英文學習 #國際時事 #週末精進 #圖表分析 #副總編操刀 #謝謝志工Howard

👍我們的第八支影片：新任美國總統拜登 — 防疫措施以及對台政策，在 YouTube 上架囉：https://reurl.cc/8nKjnM

📊Graphic detail: 26th December 2020 Saturday

每週看圖：2020年12月26日星期六

📋The biggest story ever?

新冠病毒是史上最大的事件？

Only the world wars have rivalled covid-19 for news coverage

只有兩次世界大戰比新冠病毒佔更多新聞版面

In late March, 80% of our articles mentioned “covid” or “coronavirus”

在 (今年) 3月下旬，我們有 80%的文章內容提到了「冠狀病毒 (covid/coronavirus)」

Given how much the world has changed in 2020, it is hard to fathom that the year was just one leap-day longer than 2019. On January 16th The Economist published its first article about a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, which at that point had been confirmed only as the cause of 42 infections and one death. Two weeks later, covid-19 made its debut on our cover. It returned there on February 27th, and held the slot for ten consecutive issues. The topic has claimed seven more covers since then.

有鑑於 2020年全球發生的劇烈變化，很難想像這一年僅僅因閏年而比 2019年多了一天。在 (今年) 1月16日，《經濟學人 (The Economist)》對中國武漢發表了有關新冠病毒的第一篇文章，當時該文僅報導 42名感染個案以及 1名死亡病例。兩週後，新冠病毒首次在我們的封面亮相。(今年) 2月27日又再次登上封面，並連續 10期 (週) 榜上有名。此後，該主題又在我們的封面亮相 7次。

Is the pandemic the biggest news story ever? The two world wars and the Spanish flu of 1918 caused far more deaths, as have various famines and genocides. However, covid-19 has altered people’s daily routines in almost every country, in a way that deadlier events did not. Moreover, fatality counts cannot quantify developments that have changed people’s lives for the better.

新冠病毒的大流行是有史以來最大的新聞報導嗎？兩次世界大戰和 1918年的西班牙流感 (Spanish flu) 造成的死亡人數更多，而各種飢荒和種族滅絕亦如此。然而，新冠病毒幾乎改變了每個國家人民的日常生活，而前述的致命事件卻未有如此之狀況。此外，人們生活發展的改變無法被 (疫情) 死亡人數所量化。

As an alternative measure, we combed through every article we have published since our founding in 1843, and counted how often we mentioned certain keywords in each year. To diversify this analysis, the New York Times has also granted us access to its archives, which stretch back to 1851. In both publications, just under half of articles this year (including January and February, when the disease was mostly limited to China) have included “covid-19” or “coronavirus”. In late March, four-fifths of our own stories used one of those words.

取而代之的是，我們梳理了自 1843年成立以來所發佈的每篇文章，並計算每年提到某些關鍵字的頻率。為了使這種分析多樣化，《紐約時報 (New York Times)》也授權我們使用其資料庫 (可追溯至 1851年)。在這兩個刊物中 (經濟學人以及紐約時報)，今年 (含該病毒侷限於中國的 1月和 2月時期) 有不到一半的文章數提到了「冠狀病毒 (covid/coronavirus)」。但從 (今年) 3月下旬開始，在我們刊登的文章中就有五分之四使用到這些字詞。

Only two events in modern history have come close to these fractions: the world wars. The share of Economist stories referring to “war” reached 53% in 1915 and 54% in 1941. For the New York Times, it peaked at 39% in 1918 and 37% in 1942. This gap may be explained by America’s distance from the battlefronts, which reduced the effect of the fighting on daily life. If newspapers around the world hewed closer to 35% than 55% in their reporting of the wars, then covid-19 has probably set a new record.

在當今歷史上，只有兩個事件接近上述刊登的頻率：兩次世界大戰。《經濟學人》的報導提到「戰爭」的比例在 1915年以及 1941年分別為 53%和 54%。《紐約時報》在 1918年以及 1942年的報導中提到該詞的比例分別為 39%和 37%。此一差距可以用美國離戰場較遠來解釋 (戰場主要在歐陸，而美國在大西洋的另一頭)，而該距離減少了戰爭對 (美國人民) 日常生活的影響。如果世界各地的報紙報導戰爭的比例趨近 35%，而非 55%，那麼新冠病毒可能已經刷新了記錄。

Media coverage is a flawed gauge of importance. Many critics worry that journalists focus too much on bad news, which often arrives via unexpected catastrophes, and too little on improvements, which tend to accumulate more gradually. Nonetheless, The Economist’s archive bears traces of life getting better — or at least, we have taken stock of slow-moving changes in welfare more frequently as time has gone on. Even before 2020, mentions of “health” were rising. “Democracy”, though under threat in many countries, grew in popularity in the late 1980s. Articles about “poverty” became more common after 2000, when the UN listed its eradication as its first goal for the new millennium.

媒體報導的重要性存在著缺陷。許多評論人士擔心，記者關注過多通常因意料之外的災難而起之壞消息，但卻很少著墨在逐漸累積的改善之處。然而，《經濟學人》的資料庫記載著生活不斷改善的痕跡 — 至少，隨著時間的流逝，我們越來越頻繁地評估 (社會) 福利的緩慢變化。甚至在 2020年以前，提到「健康」的頻率也在增加。「民主」雖然在許多國家受到迫害，但在 1980年代後期是越來越流行的。在 2000年以後，當聯合國 (UN) 將消弭貧窮列為千禧年的首要目標時，有關「貧窮」的文章就變得更為普遍。

The 21st century also brought a surge in stories referring to the “internet” or being “online”. Before 2020, the biggest change in most people’s daily lives in recent decades was probably the advent of the world wide web and smartphones. If the pandemic makes working from home realistic for many employees, it might have a similarly long-lasting effect. That would be a welcome silver lining to a long, gloomy year.

21世紀也使得「網路」或「線上」相關的報導激增。在 2020年以前，造就近幾十年來大多數人日常生活上最大的變化可謂網路以及智慧型手機的問世。如果疫情大流行使得許多員工居家辦公，那麼它可能會有類似的長期影響。那也將是這漫長而陰鬱一年中的一線曙光。

Sources: Gale; New York Times; The Economist

資料來源：Gale 資料庫系統；紐約時報；經濟學人週報

—

✔︎ 按讚【每日一經濟學人】Facebook 粉專：https://reurl.cc/Lddode

✔︎ 追蹤【每日一經濟學人】Instagram 帳號：https://reurl.cc/Oqqoq3

✔︎ 訂閱【每日一經濟學人】YouTube 頻道：https://reurl.cc/Y665dX

✔︎ 閱讀【每日一經濟學人】Medium 平台：https://reurl.cc/k00WZr

—

📢📢邀請您至以下平台同步收聽【每日一經濟學人】的 Podcast 頻道！！

✔︎ Apple Podcast: https://reurl.cc/R17RvD

✔︎ Google Podcast: https://reurl.cc/ygW0K2

✔︎ Spotify: https://reurl.cc/Xkxg2R

✔︎ KKbox: https://reurl.cc/Q3Ng2M

✔︎ SoundOn: https://reurl.cc/7oYNYD