听力文本

This is Scientific American — 60-Second Science. I'm Christopher Intagliata.
In the era of fake news it's worth remembering: the medium is the message. For example: psychological studies have shown that text that's hard to read is more likely to be deemed untrue. Now a study suggests that when radio shows interview guests over bad phone lines, listeners might discount the credibility of a speaker...and her work.
"We find, over and over again, that the easier something is to process, the more likely you are to assume that it's true. And the more compelling you find it." Norbert Schwarz is a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Southern California...who readily agreed to record himself in a higher quality format for this story than we'd get by recording his phone line.
Schwarz and his collaborator Eryn Newman asked 99 volunteers to listen to an interview about genetics on the public radio program Science Friday. One recording was presented in normal phone quality: (SciFri clip 1). But the other was tampered with, to cut its quality even more: (SciFri clip 2) Hard to hear, and less compelling.

"In the condition where the audio quality is less good, same researcher—saying the exact same thing—it's the same basic clip, is evaluated as being less qualified, being less good, being less convincing. And the message is assumed to reflect less important research. So basically, if your audio is not good, it hurts both your own credibility and the perceived quality of the research."
The researchers got similar results on a second experiment, using audio from talks delivered at scientific conference. The findings are in the journal Science Communication.
Schwarz has obvious advice for audio producers, and their subjects: "Whenever you can, you should really try to get your interviewees at a good mic with a very good line. And as the interviewee it's really in your interest to look for a good connection."
Here's one more reason to record higher quality interviews: volunteers were less likely to share lower-quality interviews on social media. A place where it's already hard enough to be heard above the noise.
Thanks for listening for Scientific American — 60-Second Science. I'm Christopher Intagliata.

参考译文

这里是科学美国人——60秒科学F@z84&TN1gA|z&Mo@*。我是克里斯托弗·因塔利亚塔Qt~O40Q9_KIS7r9e。
在假新闻时代，需要记住的是：媒体就是信息-(,=5y_EkE#4sx。例如：心理学研究表明，难以阅读的文本更可能被认为是不真实的WeoZn-*fFv(MX|~8]。现在一项研究表明，当广播节目通过糟糕的电话连线采访嘉宾时，对听众来说，讲话者及其著作的可信度可能会下降6&TEYdZj|@LuCnJ~。
“我们多次发现，某样东西处理起来越容易，人们就越可能认为它是真的，同时也会认为那更具说服力&V[3hm]#.*。”南加州大学的社会和认知心理学家诺伯特·施沃兹说到，他欣然同意为这期内容录制更高音质的版本，而不是通过电话连线录制的版本7ZfcL)Qq3vK.ebuQ。
施沃兹和他的合作者艾林·纽曼让99名志愿者收听公共广播节目《科学星期五》中有关基因学的采访+wC~9s@pOT0OHU。一则录音以普通电话音质呈现：（《科学星期五》音频1）m)*(YEf![Z!5]bUq5。另一则音频则被篡改，进一步降低音质：（《科学星期五》音频2），令录音很难听清，同时说服力也有所降低#%fbNF~nPv。
“在音质不佳的情况下，同一位研究人员说同样内容的同一基本音频剪辑，会被评价为不太合格、不太好、不太有说服力p78f+|-ybVo]Cs@O40。而且录音中提到的信息会被认为是不太重要的研究a_Dq57&^uBgf~mn|g。因此，基本上如果你的音频质量不佳，那就会损害你自身的可信度和研究的感知质量[OvM_m6l5Tod。”
研究人员用科学会议上的讲话音频进行了第二个实验，得到了类似的结果z6^~a_M=m4bB%。这项研究结果发表在《科学传播》期刊上Z~O,RitjaQowU,。
施沃兹对音频制作者及录制对象提出了明确的建议：“只要你能做到，那就应该尽量为受访者提供拥有良好线路的高质量麦克风(qa-b[55C1qGb@qJH。作为受访者，寻找优质的连接状况真的有利于你dGYw[;HGm+。”
还有一个录制高质量访谈的理由：志愿者不太可能在社交媒体上分享低质量访谈kO7LZ1WP6!96。而社交媒体上已经很难能听到真实的声音了Oh[=!y3==!r。
谢谢大家收听科学美国人——60秒科学Z(s2@KmxQ*cRK!Xr[#z。我是克里斯托弗·因塔利亚塔1qA!YDXUk5G1+)2。

译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！

重点讲解

重点讲解：
1. be likely to do sth. 可能（做…）的；有（…）倾向的；
They, too, would be likely to exact a high price for their cooperation.
他们也可能会为提供合作而索要高价zn07blYV4C3+lBym!。
2. over and over again 一再；再三；反复；
This is what she has been saying over and over again--I don't know how many times.
这种话，她翻来覆去不知说过多少遍了5Gs!hN&XNZMOC3_L05*。
3. agree to do sth. 同意；应允；答应；
This information shall not be disclosed to any associate unless they agree to execute and be bound by the terms of this agreement.
资料不得透露给任何合伙人，除非他们同意执行，并受本协议的条款约束Z[q@#Lkh*27]IyTZ2FD。
4. tampere with 干预；篡改；
He found his computer had been tampered with.
他发现他的电脑被人动过手脚l7kX9coigc7|3wY^。