Reader question:
Please explain “maverick views” in this: “Journalistic ethics suggest that maverick views should be published.”
My comments:
Maverick views are opinion that is unusual in that it is unconventional and unorthodox.
Unconventional? Not conventional, not in accordance with conventional wisdom, the general opinion of what’s wrong and right, dumb or smart. A convention can be a great formal meeting, or an agreement that comes out from such a meeting, hence the concept.
Unorthodox? Not Orthodox, i.e. not in accordance with ideas of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church, commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. It regards itself as the only true Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Hence in common language, being orthodox is synonymous to being official, mainstream, normal, correct, acceptable, etc. Being unorthodox, therefore, is anything but.
Maverick, on the other hand, is derived from American cattle owner Samuel Maverick (1803-70), who refused to brand his cattle as other owners did. In the Wild West in those days, cattle were left to graze in the open range. Owners, therefore, rely on branding (burning a mark on the skin of the animal with a brand, a piece of hot iron) to tell ownership. Maverick, a lawyer, would never brand his cattle – at the risk of loss, of course, as fellow ranchers might catch Maverick’s unbranded cattle, put their own branding on the animals and thus claim ownership to them.
Anyways, Samuel became known for his independent mind and his surname Maverick later became synonymous with any unbranded cattle roaming in the wild. In due course, maverick became accepted as an adjective, descriptive of anyone who does things his own way, even if it goes against the grain of what’s commonly accepted as right or correct.
Here are media examples or people who are considered to be “maverick” for having “maverick views”:
1. A Cardiff University study found British scientists ousted ‘maverick’ colleagues to avoid giving their arguments legitimacy.
In comparison, Swedish colleagues believed exclusion only served to exacerbate problems.
The author said this might explain how controversies around issues such as MMR have become health scares in the UK.
Dr Lena Eriksson surveyed 30 expert scientists from Sweden and the UK about their opinions on a high-profile controversial topic in their field of expertise - genetically modified food.
She found significant differences between the two groups’ attitudes about scientist Arpad Pusztai who was suspended from his workplace after claiming in 1998 that a type of GM potato had adverse effects on the immune systems of rats.
The Swedish scientists were more inclined to take the view that there has to be scope for scientists to make mistakes, and therefore the treatment of Pusztai was to be condemned, regardless of the truth to his claims.
The British scientists on the other hand only said it was wrong to suspend Pusztai when they believed he was right in his conclusions.
When they did not hold the same unorthodox views as a maverick scientist, their first instinct was to shut out any dissenting voice, said Dr Eriksson.
She believes research communities that punish scientists who present contentious results will risk disenchanting an already sceptical public even further.
“This increases the likelihood of scientific controversies moving into a public domain, as the ousted scientists are forced to seek new audiences for their claims.”
- Science creates ‘own mavericks’ - News.BBC.co.uk, August 16, 2004.
2. The Tea Party movement last night wielded a huge impact on the American political process that will ensure its influence for years to come, though it also suffered setbacks to its wilder fringes.
The two big victories of the night, Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky, confirmed that the Tea Parties are not a fly-by-night affair but a real seismic shift in the political landscape that can put fear in the hearts of Republican and Democratic leaders alike. Both victors unseated establishment Republican candidates with the help of populist Tea Party backing, signifying a general push towards the right within US conservatism.
But there were also signs that the leaders of the movement – to the extent that the amorphous, bottom-up Tea Parties have leaders – will have to think carefully about how they chose their candidates after two major figures, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Carl Paladino in New York state, went down to embarrassing defeats.
John Boehner, the likely Speaker of the House of Representatives after the Republicans swept into the majority, gave a clear indication of the sway the Tea Parties now hold over his party’s leadership. He had a conference telephone call with Tea Party activists in his district of Ohio and told them: “I will never let you down.”
Across the board, exit polls suggested that more than one in 10 voters identified themselves as members of the Tea Party movement.
In another important gain for the movement, Nikki Haley, an Asian American, won the governor’s race in South Carolina for the Republicans. Her victory is not only a boon for the Tea Parties but also for Sarah Palin, who endorsed Haley early on.
In New York State, Carl Paladino crashed out against his Democratic opponent Andrew Cuomo.
Paladino was initially enthusiastically backed by the Tea Parties but then became embroiled in a series of damaging revelations, including details of racist and sexist emails he circulated among friends. He also had a contretemps with a journalist.
“Any of my missteps were just me. It's just being human. How can you not misstep in an election process like this?” he said.
Christine O’Donnell, who became the unacceptable face of the Tea Parties, also lost heavily in Delaware. She struggled against media coverage of her youthful dabbling with witchcraft and her maverick views on anything from masturbation to creationism.
Tea Party leaders have insisted they have no regrets about choosing unconventional candidates who signal that this is a change from “politics as usual”. But as the movement shifts from being a mere channel of rightwing anger to being a real political force, it is likely to come under pressure to contain its more extreme edges.
- Tea Party victories show seismic shift in US politics, Guardian.co.uk, November 3, 2010.
About the author:
Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.
辽宁省沈阳二中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
2017届高考英语一轮复习课件:Unit11 The Media(北师大版)
江苏省江阴市五校2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
湖南省常德市淮阳中学2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
吉林省延吉市汪清县汪清六中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
云南省保山市腾冲八中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
陕西省宝鸡中学2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
湖南省怀化市怀化三中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题 Word版含答案
河南师大附中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
四川省成都外国语学校2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试试卷 英语 word版含答案
浙江省杭州二中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中英语试题 Word版含答案
江苏省邗江中学(集团)2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题(新疆班)
2017届高考英语一轮复习课件:Unit13 The Media(北师大版)
广东省龙川一中2017-2017学年高一10月阶段测试英语试题 Word版含答案
浙江省温州市十校联合体2017-2017学年高一上学期期中联考英语试题
四川省成都市七中实验学校2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
浙江省杭州十四中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中英语试题
吉林省长春外国语学校2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
Cheap shot?
福建省南安一中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
河北省行唐县第一中学2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题(无答案)
新疆兵团农二师华山中学2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
2017届高考英语一轮复习课件:Unit10 Money(北师大版)
山西省忻州一中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题 Word版含答案
2017届高考英语一轮复习课件:Unit14 Careers(北师大版)
江苏省宿迁市2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题(普通班) Word版无答案
安徽省池州一中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题(无答案)
四川省古蔺县中学2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
浙江省金华一中2017-2017学年高一上学期期中考试英语试题
2017届高考英语一轮复习课件:Unit15 Learning(北师大版)
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |