听力文本

This is Scientific American — 60-Second Science, I'm Christopher Intagliata.
Nature documentaries are known for their sweeping natural vistas, their amazing footage—seriously, how did they get that shot?—and, often, the soothing baritone of Sir David Attenborough.
(CLIP: Attenborough clip)
What those documentaries don't do, though, is show the realities of environmental destruction.
"Historically, particularly BBC documentaries have shied away from that." Niki Rust is an environmental social scientist at Newcastle University in the U.K.
Rust studied work by the BBC and by the World Wildlife Fund, which had teamed up with Netflix to make what they said would be a whole new kind of production. "They wanted it to reach a billion people, and it was going to revolutionize nature documentaries." (Except for the fact, maybe, that Attenborough would be the narrator.)
The Netflix series, Our Planet, aimed to be different, because it promised to reveal the threats facing wildlife and the natural world. So did it deliver?

Rust and her colleagues analyzed scripts of Our Planet, along with three recent BBC series—Planet Earth II, Dynasties, and Blue Planet II—and logged everything they saw on-screen.
Turns out, "Our Planet only talks about threats and successes a little bit more than Blue Planet II." Fifteen percent of the script did focus on the woes of the natural world. But very little devastation was actually shown on screen—despite being filmed.
The analysis is in the journal People and Nature.
"The lead author of the study, Julia Jones, was in Madagascar at the time, when Netflix was there filming. She knows they were there filming the destruction of habitat and burning and lots of environmental devastation. So they've got the footage. It just, unfortunately, wasn't chosen to be included."
It's not clear if that's really a bad thing, though—we still don't really know whether showing environmental tragedies on-screen motivates people to support conservation. But what climate change communication has taught us, Rust says, is that the ideal way to motivate audiences is with optimism—tinged with trepidation.
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秒科学系列，我是克里斯托弗·因塔格里塔pwQxd+nXHu9。
自然纪录片以其广阔的自然景观和令人惊叹的画面而闻名——说真的，他们是怎么拍到这些画面的？通常，这些纪录片会搭配大卫·艾登堡爵士舒缓的男中音Nnm)*thrI]Id。
（音频片段：艾登堡讲解）
然而，这些纪录片并没有展示环境破坏的现实z2AV~L1chyqaW4S7c[UA。
“从历史上看，BBC纪录片尤其会回避这一现实JnH!P7SdjQN。”英国纽卡斯尔大学的环境社会科学家妮基·拉斯特说到7p2Rpe(YE.AH。
拉斯科研究了BBC和世界野生动物基金会的作品，这两个机构曾与网飞公司合作，制作他们所称的全新作品HTJhaW~xkI4qghJ&^。“他们希望能影响10亿人，为自然纪录片带来革命性的变化+a^Lz.AeEzO29bVRs^。”（除了艾登堡仍将为纪录片配音这一事实0jORn-(EEVpoOz。）
网飞公司出品的系列纪录片《我们的星球》旨在做到与众不同，因为其承诺揭示野生动物和自然面临的威胁g)aQ4O7SQe#。那它做到了吗？
拉斯特及其同事分析了《我们的星球》以及BBC最近播出的三部纪录片《行星地球II》、《王朝》和《蓝色星球II》的剧本，并记录下他们在屏幕上看到的一切^cdfmx%-UZ@ej。
结果发现，“《我们的星球》提到的威胁和成功只比《蓝色星球II》多一点点EI9-So#@=*x2F4f。”剧本的15%关注自然界的灾难v2CIhY|2TQ~C^。但破坏景象几乎没有展现在屏幕上——尽管他们拍摄了破坏画面|qI6khu51p。
这项分析发表在《人类与自然》期刊上xqxAGX^HfuY-q~N;H6@。
“网飞公司在马达加斯加拍摄时，该研究的主要作者朱莉·琼斯也在那里3978soBwo~oW8Wd。她知道他们拍摄了栖息地被破坏、烧毁以及大量的环境破坏镜头z.bOt[JUQdRdjAVl。他们拍摄了这些画面!s]7%ovKN8SpklYk。但不幸的是，这些镜头未被纳入最终成品tNn+o-7=9pw#L=。”
不过，目前尚不清楚这是否真是件坏事——我们仍不知道在屏幕上展示环境悲剧能否促使人们支持环保+*RXb3oZa;6vj%PQ。但拉斯特表示，气候变化传播教会我们的是，激励观众的理想方式是带有一丝恐惧的乐观主义j+8H(dD|D)Z。
谢谢大家收听科学美国人——60秒科学%r,R,V#21I。我是克里斯托弗·因塔利亚塔;NGgxb*Lu!T。

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 known for 以…闻名的；
His canoes are known for their style, fine detail and craftsmanship.
他的独木舟以其风格独特、注重细节和做工精细著称P&vLqlqu6RsXQ5GS56#。
2. shy away from (因害怕或信心不足而)回避，躲避，避免做；
Alan doesn't shy away from controversy.
艾伦不回避争议Tqj8C7T**s。
3. team up with (与…)组队；(与…)协作；
Elton teamed up with Eric Clapton to wow thousands at a Wembley rock concert.
埃尔顿和埃里克·克拉普顿在温布利举行的一场摇滚音乐会上联袂演出，征服了数千位听众Cfb4Fwu)B3ifTmVrr~。
4. except for 除了；除…之外；唯有；
I sold everything I owned except for my car and my books.
我把我所有的东西都卖掉了，只剩下汽车和书uABNH-Tg!HJ。