WIKILEAKS:南方系某杂志供职人员系美使馆长期联络员

我是看到了这个帖子，蛋疼地翻译了下，英语不好，各位凑合。我没有翻墙去看看原文，如果哪位身手矫健可以翻过去将更多的料背过来。
另外，其实这个也不是什么令人吃惊的事了。MD和SOUTHERN之间的关系密切应该已经是公开的秘密吧，要不观海同志怎么会那么奈他们，专门接受专访呢。
PS：深切WIKILEAKS是个好东西啊，难怪MD要全球追杀呢，它将那些道貌岸然下的狼心狗肺暴露于光天化日之下，哈哈。

发信人: Maldini4Ever (贝尔格莱德 1999.5.8), 信区: Reader
标 题: 南方系某杂志供职人员系美使馆长期联络员
发信站: 水木社区 (Mon Jan 17 22:49:46 2011), 站内

研究了一下antibacteria贴的链接：
www。wikileaks。ch/cable/2008/04/08BEIJING1454.html

第2部分中：(xxxxx是美使馆长期联络人)
longtime Embassy contact xxxxx
长期以来，（美国）使馆与xxxxx保持联络

第6部分中：(关于西藏问题的两篇文章登在南方都市报和南方周末上)
Both articles appeared on April 3 in Guangdong Provincial Party papers that have a reputation for pushing the limits of Central Propaganda Department (CPD) guidelines. The first, which appeared in a blog run by Southern Metropolis (Nanfang Dushibao), was critical of the Party's restrictions on reporting in Tibet, arguing that allowing foreign reporters to cover the story directly would provide a more accurate picture of events. The second, published in Southern Weekend (Nanfang Zhoumou), argued that most Tibetans are not separatists and do not support or participate in the unrest or advocate violence, and that such distinctions should be made when responding to the issue.
两篇文章都于4月3日出现在了广东省委机关报上，这些报纸拥有冲破中*宣*部（CPD）指示限制的声誉。第一篇文章出现在由《南方都市报》运行的一个博客上，批评Party在TIBET所进行的报道限制，要求允许外国记者直接全面了解事件因果，以提供更为准确的时间图片。第二篇文章登载于《南方周末》，提出大多数藏*人并不是分离主义分子，并且没有支持或参与骚乱或者鼓吹暴力，这些区别需要在对待这一问题时加以考虑。

第9部分中：(xxxxx自己都没读过自己所在报业集团的这两篇文章)
Surprisingly, even the xxxxx had not read either article that appeared in his group's newspapers.
令人吃惊的是，即使是xxxxx也未曾读过登载于自己集团下属报纸上的这两篇文章。

第10部分中：(xxxxx应当供职于南方系某杂志)
Despite this supposed "room" for more nuanced reporting on Tibet, xxxxx said Tibet is "far too sensitive" and his magazine has therefore decided "not to touch" the story for now. xxxxx, reportedly have been "ordered" to produce cover stories on Tibet under "very strict" guidelines from the Propaganda Department.
尽管存在这个所谓可以更加细致在TIBET报道的“空间”，但xxxxx说TIBET依然“过于敏感”，从而他的杂志直到现在都选择“不去触碰”这一事件。据xxxxx所说，他们已经被“要求”遵照宣传部门提出的“非常严格”的要求进行事件始末的报道。我是看到了这个帖子，蛋疼地翻译了下，英语不好，各位凑合。我没有翻墙去看看原文，如果哪位身手矫健可以翻过去将更多的料背过来。
另外，其实这个也不是什么令人吃惊的事了。MD和SOUTHERN之间的关系密切应该已经是公开的秘密吧，要不观海同志怎么会那么奈他们，专门接受专访呢。
PS：深切WIKILEAKS是个好东西啊，难怪MD要全球追杀呢，它将那些道貌岸然下的狼心狗肺暴露于光天化日之下，哈哈。

发信人: Maldini4Ever (贝尔格莱德 1999.5.8), 信区: Reader
标 题: 南方系某杂志供职人员系美使馆长期联络员
发信站: 水木社区 (Mon Jan 17 22:49:46 2011), 站内

研究了一下antibacteria贴的链接：
www。wikileaks。ch/cable/2008/04/08BEIJING1454.html

第2部分中：(xxxxx是美使馆长期联络人)
longtime Embassy contact xxxxx
长期以来，（美国）使馆与xxxxx保持联络

第6部分中：(关于西藏问题的两篇文章登在南方都市报和南方周末上)
Both articles appeared on April 3 in Guangdong Provincial Party papers that have a reputation for pushing the limits of Central Propaganda Department (CPD) guidelines. The first, which appeared in a blog run by Southern Metropolis (Nanfang Dushibao), was critical of the Party's restrictions on reporting in Tibet, arguing that allowing foreign reporters to cover the story directly would provide a more accurate picture of events. The second, published in Southern Weekend (Nanfang Zhoumou), argued that most Tibetans are not separatists and do not support or participate in the unrest or advocate violence, and that such distinctions should be made when responding to the issue.
两篇文章都于4月3日出现在了广东省委机关报上，这些报纸拥有冲破中*宣*部（CPD）指示限制的声誉。第一篇文章出现在由《南方都市报》运行的一个博客上，批评Party在TIBET所进行的报道限制，要求允许外国记者直接全面了解事件因果，以提供更为准确的时间图片。第二篇文章登载于《南方周末》，提出大多数藏*人并不是分离主义分子，并且没有支持或参与骚乱或者鼓吹暴力，这些区别需要在对待这一问题时加以考虑。

第9部分中：(xxxxx自己都没读过自己所在报业集团的这两篇文章)
Surprisingly, even the xxxxx had not read either article that appeared in his group's newspapers.
令人吃惊的是，即使是xxxxx也未曾读过登载于自己集团下属报纸上的这两篇文章。

第10部分中：(xxxxx应当供职于南方系某杂志)
Despite this supposed "room" for more nuanced reporting on Tibet, xxxxx said Tibet is "far too sensitive" and his magazine has therefore decided "not to touch" the story for now. xxxxx, reportedly have been "ordered" to produce cover stories on Tibet under "very strict" guidelines from the Propaganda Department.
尽管存在这个所谓可以更加细致在TIBET报道的“空间”，但xxxxx说TIBET依然“过于敏感”，从而他的杂志直到现在都选择“不去触碰”这一事件。据xxxxx所说，他们已经被“要求”遵照宣传部门提出的“非常严格”的要求进行事件始末的报道。