只是這新聞就算拿標題來說也應該沒太多可爭議的吧…
畢竟就算國外報告 是以CHEAT代替作弊
當初調查時 並不會是整篇的英文 而會是中文吧
至於如果要硬是說”考試作弊”才算”中文中的” “作弊”
那應該也是….
抄報告.抄筆記.從網路找文章當報告 甚至找槍手等…
國外定義為”CHEAT” 而所不容許的事情 我們如此輕易放過
這才是問題根本…

沒閒錢！平均1年只看2場電影 (聯合報 黃玉芳)
文化消費也有M型化現象！一份最新調查顯示，月收入六萬元以上，看電影、買畫看畫等的文化消費力最高，而月收入在1到2萬元間，為生活打拚…..

Perhaps my conclusion on this news report is happen to be the same as the reporter. I do have the feeling and impression that our college education is generally worse than 10 years before. This is not the fault of those students, but the system goes wrong. You may argue on the rush conclusion of the reporter or the partial fact, but readers as me do have our own judgement. Our coclusion is simply not from that single piece of news, but from many things around us. Life experience, you may say so.

This debate may go on and on and leads to nowhere. Everyone may have different opinion on this. The point is simply what do you believe.

In this case, I do believe on my own judgement.

Having studied media for almost ten year, I am trained to use certain terms, such as reflect I mentioned in the previous comment, in a very demanding way to describe media phenomena I watch. That’s the reason for writing the comment.

It has been proved that media is not a mirror simply and passively refecting an event. However, media actively constrcuts news. As I have mentioned, ‘construct’ means news practitinors (journalists, editors etc) select, exculde and emphasize raw materials to compose news text ( N.B. text including words, sentences, and pictures ect) we read. Constructing news is absolutely not the same as making up news . In this vein, I dont mean to presuppose news practitinors who have certain intenions to report a phenomenon. Actually, they just do their daily routine according to so-called professional principles.The professional principles, however, are strategical rituals which could make their report be claimed as objectivity. In the process of contructing news, they unconsciously lead the issue to the way(s).

Taking ‘教育真失敗 7成大學生承認作弊 ‘ and ‘ 教育失敗？！7成大學生曾作弊　工學院較嚴重 ‘ as samples, both of them quote the survey to support their ideas of the reports preventing from personal opinions (or say subjective if you like). As PipperL writes in his post, the former one at least mentions the definition of ‘cheat’ in the survey but still leads the issue to failure of higher education in the end. The later one directly leads the survey to cheating strategies in exams and also concludes with failure of higher education. They do quote the suvey as testimony to headlines and main texts. However, it is not the survey intending to present- cheating in studies including exams and reports and any other dishonety to school work. To be worse, the reports only balme college stuendts and higer education, but ignore that to go behind the phenomenon the survey indicates, which is the responsibility of what a journalist should do. Therefore, I dont dare to say jouralists/media/reports ‘refelct’ phenomenon, not to mention ‘truth’.

Journalists are important, because audiences do not have personal experiences or contact with happenings around the world which they need to know. In the sense, audiences delegate a privilege journalists/media to mediate the world to them. Media is definitely not a mirror, as I have argued above. Audiences have to read news more critically. Critical reaing does not mean ‘質疑記者或別人的動機，也是一種台灣社會普徧存在的被害妄想邏輯’ or predetermine a conspiracy to news. It is the same as what bloggers doing – media watch, in the way that makes journalists/media do their job more deliberate (less taken for grated ) and better.

This long comment might be off-topic. However, I’d like to say here is the importance of media literacy education – always to read news critically. Again, it’s not conspiratorial reading, but do think about what does the news want to tell you.

I want to argue a point on the comment posed under the title ‘你/妳的「作弊」定義，跟我想像的一樣嗎?’.
I do agree that ‘就算這個記者的大學報告亂七八糟，與這篇報導試著點出的問題其實並無關聯’. However, I dobut the word ‘反映’ (reflect) in the comment. Media/ Journalists has been proved that they never refelct the event/phenomenon per se, but construct a news text (do you realize I say event/phenmenon for ‘refelct’, news text for ‘construct’). For this news, I dont dare to judge personalities of these journalists (OK..I am very colse to one of them), but I have to say, according to the news, college students are labelled. The event and its raw materials has been selected, excluded and emphasized on certain foci. After the process, it is what you see and make comments here. How can us readers simple say the news refelct the social phenomenon?

By the way to mention, the news even dont touch the main point of the phenomenon -why do they want to cheat? Again, what I can get from the news is the phenomenon approved by research, but in what way and how did not be mentioned.

不管是學業不誠實或是考試作弊，都是不對的。東西方對於學業不誠實的態度也值得再進一步討論。不過這不代表兩者相等，也不代表新聞在呈現時，有必要以作弊來代換學業不誠實。

「就算這個記者的大學報告亂七八糟，與這篇報導試著點出的問題其實並無關聯，因為報導者是要反映社會現象的，並不必當個道德聖人才能當記者。」這點我同意 Frey 的說法。