英语的使用范围非常广泛。世界上70%以上的邮件是用英文写或用英文写地址的。全世界的广播节目中，有60%是用英语进行的。国际上的资料绝大部分是用英语发表的。这里给大家分享一些关于大学英语演讲稿范文，供大家参考。该页是勤劳的编辑帮大伙儿整编的大学生英语演讲稿【优秀3篇】，欢迎参考阅读。
大学英语演讲稿 篇一
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 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 divided 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 individual 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.
大学英语演讲稿 篇二
Should smoking be banned?
Different people have different opinions. Somesmokers think smoking is a kind of enjoyment, andthey could live without food but will die withoutsmoking. Also they said they have freedom ofsmoking and it has nothingto do with others.However a lot of non-smokers don't agree. In theiropinion, smoking is harmful to not onlysmokersthemselves but also public health especially thewoman and children. Therefore, many coutries have worked out lots to forbid smoking in publicplaces, such as cinemas, hospitals, stations etc. Nowadays, smokersmake up one quarter of theworld's population. If the problem of smoking is not dealt with seriously, human health will bein danger. So smoking should be banned in no time.
大学英语演讲稿 篇三
good afternoon,
bidding for the olympic games is, in a way, an image-creating undertaking. the first and foremost thing is to let people fall in love
with the city at first sight, attracting them by its unique image. what image does beijing intend to create for itself once it has the opportunity to host the XX olympics? it’s known to all that the beijing municipal government has already set the theme for the future games: new beijing, great olympics. for me, the XX olympics will be a great green olympics illuminated with two more special colors, yellow and red.
first, yellow is a meaningful color. the yellow river is china’s mother river and the cradle of chinese civilization. we are of the yellow race and descendants of the yellow emperor. this color has a special origin and great significance for the chinese people. beijing is the capital of new china and previously the capital for nine dynasties in chinese history. so, yellow will naturally add splendor to the XX games.
secondly, the XX olympics will be a red pageant.
red is another traditionally cherished color for the whole country. we adore red. on big occasions, we like to decorate our homes in red. it is the color of double happiness, representing joyous moments, 1)auspiciousness, enthusiasm and prosperity. red is one of the most suitable colors to describe the future of beijing. beijing, together with the whole country, is becoming more and more prosperous in the process of modernization. should the XX olympics be held in beijing, the whole city will be a sea of red: the red torch, red flags, red flowers, and the radiant faces of millions of joyful people.
above all, the XX olympics will be a green olympics.
adding the green 2) ingredient is essential in creating an appealing image, as we can’t deny the fact that beijing, at the moment, is not as green a city as what we like it to be. striving for an environmentally appealing city has become a central task for all the citizens of beijing. big efforts have been made in pollution control, replanting and beautification of the city. according to a project entitled “the green olympic action plan,” between 1998 and XX, beijing will have invested 100 billion rmb in preserving and protecting the environment. some 12.5 million trees and over 1 million acres of grass will be planted along the fourth ring road. by then, the city’s green area will make up 40% of its total. the city will also dredge its 3) reservoirs used as a water supply to beijing residents, controlling industrial pollution and moving out the 200 factories presently located within the city proper.
certainly, all of this is no easy task. but i am sure that all of us have confidence that we will realize these “green” goals, for now we have the full support and participation of the environmentally conscious citizens. each citizen is showing great concern for every one of the steps the city government takes. as the saying goes, “united, we stand”, and a green beijing will be achieved.
when our aspiration becomes a reality, it will be a unique olympics. “new beijing, great olympics” will be weaved of these three superb colors: yellow, red and green.
let us welcome it and look forward to it! thank you!
selre
may 23,XX