第一篇：英语演讲：Television News Coverage（范文模版）

Spiro Theodore Agnew: Television News Coverage<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” />

I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT.I have a subject which I think if of great importance to the American people.Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people.No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens.No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion.Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power.So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media.The question is, “Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?” “And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?”

Monday night a week ago, president Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade.His subject was <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Vietnam.My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the pacific.For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history.When the president completed his address--an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of--his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism.The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the president of the United States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say.It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance.Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed president Johnson’s dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness.This was not it.One commentator twice contradicted the president’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh.Another challenged the president’s abilities as a politician.A third asserted that the president was following a pentagon line.Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval.To guarantee in advance that the president’s plea for national unity would be challenged, one network trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion.Throughout the president's address, he waited in the wings.When the president concluded, Mr.Harriman recited perfectly.He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative;he criticized the president’s speech for various deficiencies;he twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again;he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want military take-over of South Vietnam;and he told a little anecdote about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation.All in all, Mr.Harrison offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the president of the United States.Where the president had issued a call for unity, Mr.Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him.A word about Mr.Harriman.For 10 months he was America’s chief negotiator at the paris peace talks--a period in which the United States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, Mr.Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen.And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires.Now every American has a right to disagree with the president of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement.But the president of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a presidential address without having a president’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through.When president Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow.The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation.First, let’s define that power.At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news.Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being pided between N.B.C.and C.B.S.According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news.In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper.Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets.Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public.This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available.Their powers of choice are broad.They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world.We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight.They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war.They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week.They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue--like the ABM or civil rights--becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge--through news, documentaries, and specials.They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems.The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight.The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war.The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium.They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses--on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades.But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence.Nor is their power confined to the substantive.A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy.One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined.Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing.Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter.We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism.We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers.They draw their political and social views from the same sources.Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states objectivity is impossible to normal human behavior.Rather, he says, we should strive for fairness.Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I quote: “You can’t expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you.I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are.I’ll plead guilty to that.”

Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that president Nixon’s campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons.He claimed that, were it not for the fear of hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote him exactly, “his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe.”

Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack.But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement.The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government.Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government?

The views of the majority of this fraternity do not--and I repeat, not--represent the views of America.That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the president’s address and how the networks reviewed it.Not only did the country receive the president’s speech more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the United States.Yesterday, the president was notified that 300 inpidual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace.As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve.Now I want to make myself perfectly clear.I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship.I am asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago.They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility.They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection.Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America.But the situations are not identical.Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C.reaches 20 times that number on its evening news.[The average weekday circulation of the Times in October was 1,012,367;the average Sunday circulation was 1,523,558.] Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with reading the printed page.A decade ago, before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, Walter Lippman spoke to the issue.He said there’s an essential and radical difference between television and printing.The three or four competing television stations control virtually all that can be received over the air by ordinary television sets.But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are weeklies, monthlies, out-of-town newspapers and books.If a man doesn’t like his newspaper, he can read another from out of town or wait for a weekly news magazine.It’s not ideal, but it’s infinitely better than the situation in television.There, if a man doesn’t like what the networks are showing, all he can do is turn them off and listen to a phonograph.“Networks,” he stated “which are few in number have a virtual monopoly of a whole media of communications.” The newspaper of mass circulation have no monopoly on the medium of print.Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that democratic people should blindly ignore.And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph just because the airways belong to the networks.They don’t.They belong to the people.As Justice Byron wrote in his landmark opinion six months ago, “It’s the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

Now it’s argued that this power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly.But as to whether or not the networks have abused the power they enjoy, let us call as our first witness, former Vice president Humphrey and the city of Chicago.According to Theodore White, television’s intercutting of the film from the streets of Chicago with the “current proceedings on the floor of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968--the nomination of a man for the American presidency by the brutality and violence of merciless police.”

If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representative Commerce Committee, then television’s presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice on the reputation of the Chicago police.According to the committee findings, one network in particular presented, and I quote, “a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates the demonstrators and protestors.” Film of provocations of police that was available never saw the light of day, while the film of a police response which the protestors provoked was shown to millions.Another network showed virtually the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making clear it was the same scene.And, while the full report is reticent in drawing conclusions, it is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network news.Our knowledge of the impact of network news on the national mind is far from complete, but some early returns are available.Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on a democratic society.Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that its missing ingredients were conviction, controversy, and a point of view.The networks have compensated with a vengeance.And in the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: What is the end value--to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result--to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability?

Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news.Bad news drives out good news.The irrational is more controversial than the rational.Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent.One minute of Eldrige Cleaver is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins.The labor crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation that results in a strike--or better yet, violence along the picket lines.Normality has become the nemesis of the network news.Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news.A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture.The American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals;that the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country;that violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus.We know that none of these conclusions is true.perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York!Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes, but has it not created new ones in their places? What has this “passionate” pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through logical compromise essential to the functioning of a democratic society?

The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street.How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?

We’ve heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes.Strong arguments can be made for that view.But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?

In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States--its institutions and its citizens?

Tonight I’ve raised questions.I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers.The answers must come from the media men.They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent, and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation.They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate to the great responsibilities they hold.And the people of America are challenged, too--challenged to press for responsible news presentation.The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective.The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations.This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer;where the consumer can be the most effective crusader.By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the United States depends on these men of the media.Whether what I’ve said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision, it’s not your decision, it’s their decision.In tomorrow’s edition of the Des Moines Register, you’ll be able to read a news story detailing what I’ve said tonight.Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page, where it belongs.Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation’s networks?

Now, my friends, we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government.It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite.The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades.The people are entitled a full accounting their stewardship.

第二篇：英语演讲

A Word That Has Changed the World

------about the internet

In this statement, I want to talk about the internet, which is the most important medium these days.I want to elaborate my point from several aspects, first of all, it helps a lot for the information impart.We all know that the several decades before, people communicated with each other all by mails, which is not only slow but also inconvenient for people.Since the internet has been discovered, human history flipped into a new page.we can talk to people in the internet, what's more, we even can communicate with others face to face, which changes all the rules before and make informations much easier to be imparted.secondly, internet medium is a indispensable role playing in todays society, we read news in the intrernet to keep us abreast with the time, so that we will not be outdated and obseleted.the things in the internet is always faster and accurate than any other mediums, this is because it contains lager amount of informations.in this way, we can learn more from internet, which makes internet more and more crucial.thirdly, internet can do lots of great jobs, such as we can buy things by surfing the internet, we can save lots of money in this way, and it is used in many families these days.一个词，改变了世界

------关于互联网

在该声明中，我想谈谈国际互联网，它是最重要的，这些天。

我想阐述我的观点从几个方面，首先，它帮助了很多的信息传递。我们都知道，几十年前，人们相互连通所有的邮件，这不仅是缓慢但也不便的人。因为互联网已经发现，人类历史进入了一个新的页面翻转。我们可以交谈的人在互联网上，更重要的是，我们甚至可以与他人沟通面对面，改变所有规则前，使信息更容易被传授。

其次，网络媒体是一个不可或缺的作用发挥在今天的社会里，我们读到的新闻在intrernet于让我们了解的时间，所以我们不会过时，obseleted。东西在互联网始终是速度和准确的比其他任何媒介，这是因为它包含了大量的信息。这样，我们可以学到更多的从互联网，使互联网越来越重要。

第三，互联网可以做很多伟大的工作，比如我们可以买东西，通过上网，我们可以节省很多钱，这样，它是用来在许多家庭，这些天。

第三篇：英语演讲材料

“21世纪·爱立信杯”全国英语演讲比赛冠军得主演讲稿

作者: 孙宁

| 发布日期: 2003-9-22 9:01:46 | 分享到：

To me March 28th was a lucky day.It was on that particular evening that I found myself at central stage, in the spotlight.Winning the “21st Century·Ericsson Cup” Seventh National English Speaking Competition is a memory that I shall treasure and one that will surely stay.More important than winning the Cup is the friendship that has been established and developed among the contestants, and the chance to communicate offstage in addition to competing onstage.Also the competition helps boost public speaking in China, a skill hitherto undervalued.For me, though, the competition is a more personal experience.Habitually shy, I had been reluctant to take part in any such activities.Encouraged by my

friends, however, I made a last-minute decision to give it a try.In the course of preparation I somehow rediscovered myself, a truer me.I found that, after all, I like communicating with other people;that exchanging views can be so much fun—and so much rewarding, both emotionally and intellectually;that public speaking is most effective when you are least guarded;and that it is essential to success in every walk of life.At a more practical level, I realized knowing what you are going to say and how you are going to say it are equally important.To take the original ideas out of your head and transplant them, so to speak, to that of others, you need to have an organized mind.This ability improves with training.Yet there should not be any loss or addition or distortion in the process.Those ideas that finally find their way into another head need to be recognizably yours.Language is a means to transmit information, not a means to obstruct communication.It should be lucid to be penetrating.In China, certain public speaking skills have been unduly emphasized.Will it really help, we are compelled to ask, to bang at the podium or yell at the top of your lungs, if you have come with a poorly organized speech, a muddled mind, and unwillingness to truly share your views? Above all, the single most important thing I learnt was that as a public speaker, you need to pay attention, first and foremost, to the content of your speech.And second, the structure of your speech: how one idea relates and progresses to another.Only after these come delivery and non-verbal communication: speed control, platform manner, and so on.Pronunciation is important, yet of greater importance is this: Is your language competent enough to express your ideas exactly the way you intend them to be understood? I was informed afterwards that I was chosen to be the winner for my “appropriately worded speech, excellent presence and quick-witted response”.In so remarking, the judges clearly showed their preference: they come to listen for meaningful ideas, not for loose judgments, nor easy laughters.Some contestants failed to address their questions head on.Some were able to, but did not know where to stop—the dragging on betrayed their lack of confidence.The root cause was that they did not listen attentively to the questions.Or they were thinking of what they had prepared.As I said in my speech, “It is vitally important that we young people do more serious thinking...to take them [issues like globalization] on and give them honest thinking is the first step to be prepared for both opportunities and challenges coming our way”.We need to respond honestly.A competition like this draws talented students from all over the country.And of course, I learnt more things than just about public speaking.Since in the final analysis, public speaking is all about effective communication.And this goes true for all communications, whatever their setting.And the following is the final version of my speech: GLOBALIZATION:

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR CHINA'S YOUNGER GENERATION Thirty years ago, American President Richard Nixon made an epoch-making visit to China, a country still isolated at that time.Premier Zhou Enlai said to him, “Your handshake came over the vastest ocean in the world—twenty-five years of no communication”.Thirty years since, China and America have exchanged many handshakes.The fundamental implication of this example is that the need to communicate across differences in culture and ideology is not only felt by the two countries but by many other nations as well.As we can see today, environmentalists from different countries are making joint efforts to address the issue of global warming, economists are seeking solutions to financial crises that rage in a particular region but nonetheless cripple the world economy, and politicians and diplomats are getting together to discuss the issue of combating terrorism.Peace and prosperity has become a common goal that we are striving for all over the world.Underlying this mighty trend of global communication is the echo of E.M.Forster's words “Only connect!” With the IT revolution, traditional boundaries of human society fall away.Our culture, politics, society and commerce are being sloshed into one large melting pot of humanity.In this interlinked world, there are no outsiders, for a disturbance in one place is likely to impact other parts of the globe.We have begun to realize that a world pided cannot endure.China is now actively integrating into the world.Our recent entry to the WTO is a good example.For decades, we have taken pride in being self-reliant, but now we realize the importance of participating in and contributing to a broader economic order.From a precarious role in the world arena to our present WTO membership, we have come a long way.But what does the way ahead look like? In some parts of the world people are demonstrating against globalization.Are they justified, then, in criticizing the globalizing world? Instead of narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, they say, globalization enables the developed nations to swallow the developing nations' wealth in debts and interest.Globalization, they argue, should be about a common interest in every other nation's economic health.We are reminded by Karl Marx that capital goes beyond national borders and eludes control from any other entity.This has become a reality.Multinational corporations are seeking the lowest cost, the largest market, and the most favourable policy.They are often powerful lobbyists in government decision-making, ruthless expansionists in the global market and a devastating presence to local businesses.For China, still more challenges exist.How are we going to ensure a smooth transition from the planned economy to a market-based one? How to construct a legal system that is sound enough and broad enough to respond to the needs of a dynamic society? How to maintain our cultural identity in an increasingly homogeneous world? And how to define greatness in our rise as a peace-loving nation? Globalization entails questions that concern us all.Like many young people my age in China, I want to see my country get prosperous and enjoy respect in the international community.But it seems to me that mere patriotism is not just enough.It is vitally important that we young people do more serious thinking and broaden our mind to bigger issues.There might never be easy answers to those issues such as globalization, but to take them on and give them honest thinking is the first step to be prepared for both opportunities and challenges coming our way.This is also one of the thoughts that came to me while preparing this speech.

第四篇：英语演讲

英语演讲

物业15409 毛思艺

学号：17 Wanda Chair Wang Jianlin Tops China's Rich List 胡润财富榜：王健林目前是中国首富

The latest Hurun wealth rankings now has Wanda chair Wang Jianlin listed as China's richest man.Wang Jianlin is now said to be worth around 34-billion US dollars.We all know that wanda cinema。

A lot of his new wealth is being attributed to the 10-fold increase in the share price of Wanda's newly-listed cinema chain.And wanda shopping plaza is a lot of people like to go to the place.Wang Jianlin overtakes Alibaba founder Jack Ma, who has seen his personal net-worth drop to around 22-billion US dollars, mostly due to this year's plunge in Alibaba's share price in New York.“Beverage King” Zong Qinghou of WaHaHa sits third with a net worth of some 21 billion U.S.dollars, up 8 percent year-on-year.The same analysis by Hurun also suggests China now has more billionaires than the United States for the first time.There are nearly 600 billionaires in China.The United States has 537 right now.This shows that China is strong, China has become one of the world's most powerful country。

As teenagers, we are the future of China.We should study hard.resourceful youths lead to a resourceful nation;strong youths lead to a strong country.We may not be able to become a billionaire, but also should make a contribution to society Thanks for listening

1.Hurun wealth rankings

胡润财富榜 2.China's richest man.中国首富。3.34-billion US dollars.340亿美元。4.attribute

v.认为…是；把…归于；把…品质归于

5．newly-listed cinema chain.新上市电影产业链 6.Founder

n.创始者，缔造者

7.plunge

v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 8.share price.股价；股票价格； 9.beverage

n.(水，酒等之外的)饮料

10.up 8 percent year-on-year.同比增长百分之8。11.analysis 分析，分解 12.billionaire

亿万富翁

13.少年智则国智

少年强则国强

翻译：

胡润财富榜最新排名显示，万达集团董事长王健林目前是中国首富 王健林现在的身价约34000000000美元。大家都知道万达影城、在万达新上市的电影产业链中，有不少是以10%的速度增长的。并且万达购物广场也是很多人喜欢去的地方。

王健林财富超过阿里巴巴马云，马云及其家族以1450亿元退居第二。主要是由于纽约阿里巴巴的股价今年下跌。

“饮料大王”宗庆后的娃哈哈以1350亿元保持第三，同比增长百分之8。

胡润的分析也表明,中国现在有更多的亿万富翁首次超过美国。

中国有近600个亿万富翁。现在美国有537个。

这表明中国在不断强大，中国已成为全球最强大国家之一。而作为青少年的我们，是中国的未来。我们更应该努力学习。

足智多谋的年轻人会导致一个足智多谋的国家;强大的青年导致一个强大的国家。

少年智则国智

少年强则国强

我们也许不能成为亿万富翁，但也要为社会做出贡献 谢谢聆听！

第五篇：英语演讲

When I close my eyes, I hear the voice of love When I keep my eyes open, I see nothing but an empty world.And I take it for granted that love is simple.However, when I close my eyes , listening carefully to this big world, I hear the voice of love.What is love? Love is luxurious and enjoyable.It is also good to love: because love is difficult.For one human being to have another human being: that’s perhaps the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us.When I close my eyes,I hear the voice of love of our parents.When we are babies, mother sings to us and father tells us stories, then we can sleep well and have good dreams.When we grow up day by day, I hear the voice of parents’ laughter.They are so proud of us.And they contribute their love to us.We learn the qualities of thanksgiving, warmth, optimism and happiness with the help of our parents.When I close my eyes, I hear the voice of love of our friends.A youth said, please speak to us a Friendship.And the god answered, saying: Your friend can meet your needs.He is your field which you sow with love and reap with thansgiving.For you come to him with your hunger, and you seek him for peace.You won’t feel lonely because they love you.You’ll find that you are important in this world for that someone needs you.Burders are lighter when carried by two.Enjoy our life with our friends.When I close my eyes, I hear the voice of the true love.Romeo and Juliet, Liang shanbo and Zhu yingtai, they showed the true love.Every Jack has his Jill.We are expecting love.And the love brings happiness , pleasure, sorrow and tears to us.When we are mature, love will give us family.When we are lost in love, we learn the qualities of responsibility, faithfulness and care.Like The Titanic, Rose and Jack, my heart will go on, and the love will go on.Love is the most beautiful language in the world.When I close my eyes, I hear the voice of love.So, Let’s close our eyes, , and listen to the voice of love with all over heart.【394words】

当我闭上眼睛时，我听见了爱的声音。

睁着眼睛的时候，我只看到了空旷的世界。并且我理所当然的认为，爱是普通的。然而，当我闭上眼睛的那一刹那，用心仔细聆听这个世界时，我听见了爱的声音。

什么是爱?爱是一件奢华而享受的事。爱，很好。因为爱是艰难的。当一个人去爱另一个人，这也许是神给予我们的最艰难、最重大的任务。

当我闭上眼睛时，我听见了父母对我们的爱。当我们还在襁褓中时，妈妈为我们唱摇篮曲，爸爸为我们讲故事，我们伴着他们的慈爱甜蜜进入梦乡。当我们一天天长大时，我听到父母欣慰的笑声。他们为我们感到如此的骄傲和自豪。他们将无私的爱给予我们。在他们的指引下，我们懂得了感恩、热心、乐观和快乐。

当我闭上眼睛时，我听见了朋友对我们的爱。一个青年说，请为我们谈谈友谊。上帝回答到：你的朋友是对你需求的满足。他是你带着爱播种，带着感恩之心收获的土地。当你饥饿的时候会来到他的身边，向他寻求安宁。因为他们深爱着你，所以你不会感到孤独。你会发现自己对这个世界是如此重要，因为有人需要你。朋友会帮助我们减轻负担，总该邀朋友共享生命才是。

当我闭上眼睛时，我听见了爱情的声音。罗密欧和朱丽叶，梁山伯与祝英台，他们是真爱的化身。每一个杰克都会拥有属于他的吉儿。我们期待着爱情，爱情为我们带来了幸福、快乐、痛苦和泪水。当我们成熟之后，爱情会为我们组建家庭。当我们沐浴爱河时，我们会懂得责任、忠诚和相爱。就像【泰坦尼克】一样，罗斯和杰克，我心永恒，爱情永恒。

爱，是世界上最美的语言。当我闭上眼睛时，我听见了爱的

声音。让我们闭上眼睛仔细聆听爱的声音吧！