社交網絡"拍馬屁"請剋制

In 1990, when I had been at the FT only a shortish time, the then editor resigned. I liked him; he had been kind to me and I was sorry to see him go. But I was also very junior and had a proper horror of brown-nosing. Should I write him a letter, I wondered? Or would that be unseemly?

1990年，我到英國《金融時報》工作的時間還不長，當時的主編辭職了。我喜歡他；他對我很和氣，看到他離開我感到遺憾。但我職級很低，對阿諛奉承這檔子事相當畏懼。我自忖，該給他寫封信嗎？是不是不恰當呢？

In the end I didn’t write one, but only because I had spent so long dithering I had missed my moment. For a journalist to be several weeks late responding to news was not going to look good.

那封信到最後我也沒寫，但那只是因爲我猶豫了太長時間，所以錯過了時機。對一個記者來說，幾個星期後纔對消息做出反應看起來可不大好。

Since then the world has speeded up, so any response happens not in weeks but in minutes. It has also gone social: we no longer address our words of farewell to the person concerned but to everyone with an internet connection. And most remarkable of all, somewhere along the way our aversion to brown-nosing has got lost. It is not something to be done shamefully in secret, but proudly and with as much fanfare as possible.

自那時起這個世界的節奏一直在加快，人們不再等到幾周後，而是在幾分鐘裏就做出反應。這世界也變得越來越社交化：我們不再將告別的話語寫給當事人，而是寫給每個能上網的人。最不尋常的是，在某個時刻，我們對阿諛奉承的厭惡消失了。這不再是一件需要祕密進行的可恥的事，而變成了一件可以大大方方，越高調越好的事。

When Alan Rusbridger resigned as editor of The Guardian last Wednesday, the following spectacle played out on Twitter. Within a minute of the news getting out, the eulogies began. One former colleague tweeted: “few people in the history of journalism have had the vision and talent of @arusbridger — or could play the piano as well. A great editor.”

前段時間，《衛報》(Guardian)主編阿蘭•拉斯布里傑(Alan Rusbridger)辭職，隨後Twitter上上演了一幕奇觀。消息放出還不到一分鐘，人們就開始大唱讚歌。他的一位前同事發推文說：“新聞業史上很少有人擁有@arusbridger那樣的遠見和才華——或者鋼琴彈得像他一樣好。一位偉大的主編。”

Then others piled in, tweeting “British journalism won’t be the same without @arusbridger. If you think the tweets you’re seeing are excessive, you just never saw him work.”

然後其他人紛紛加入，發推文說“沒有了@arusbridger，英國新聞業將變得不一樣。如果你覺得你眼前的推文說得太過，那你只是從未看過他工作的樣子罷了。”

I watched the process with a grim fascination, observing that some of the compliments received a thank you from the man himself, while others met with silence.

這些推文有一種古怪的吸引力，我觀察了全過程，發現拉斯布里傑本人對其中一些讚美表示了感謝，對其他一些則未做回覆。

Mr Rusbridger, by most accounts, has been an excellent editor — and he can play Chopin’s “Ballade No. 1” on the piano too. But tweets are a vulgar way of saying so, and don’t even necessarily prove their point. Even in the pre-internet age there was never a particularly strong link between public declarations of praise from interested parties and a person’s true value.

在大多數人的敘述中，拉斯布里傑的確是一位優秀的主編，而且他還會彈肖邦(Chopin)的“第一敘事曲”(Ballade No. 1)。但用推文來說這些有點不禮貌，甚至也未必有意義。即使是在前互聯網時代，利益相關方公開發出的讚美和一個人的真正價值也從來就沒有特別緊密的聯繫。

When King Lear decided it was time to carve up his kingdom he asked his daughters how much they loved him. “Sir, I do love you more than words can wield the matter,” said Regan, which Goneril trumped by saying she loved him just as much — and then some.

當李爾王(King Lear)決定是時候將自己的王國分給幾個女兒時，他問她們有多愛他。大女兒高納里爾(Goneril)說：“父親大人，我對您的愛，不是言語所能表達的。”二女兒里根(Regan)則更勝一籌，她說姐姐剛纔說的話，正是她要對父親說的，但姐姐表達得還不夠充分。

I couldn’t help thinking of the warring sisters when I read the competing tweets from two of the most hotly tipped successors to Mr Rusbridger. First to declare her love for her departing editor was Janine Gibson. “Alan Rusbridger: Once in a generation editor; best boss ever; good at surprises,” she tweeted. Her rival for the top job, Katherine Viner, followed suit with her paean in 140 characters or fewer: “Alan Rusbridger — for 17 years my inspiring editor: never afraid, always pushing us to be bigger, bolder, braver.”

兩個最有可能接替拉斯布里傑的熱門人選發的推文簡直是在相互較勁，讓我情不自禁地想起這對爭寵的姐妹。亞尼內•吉布森(Janine Gibson)第一個宣佈了她對離任主編的愛。她發推文說：“阿蘭•拉斯布里傑：一代纔出一個的主編；有史以來最好的老闆；善於帶給我們驚喜。”與吉布森競爭最高職位的凱瑟琳•瓦伊納(Katherine Viner)效仿前者的做法，在140個或者更少的字數內寫出了自己的讚歌：“阿蘭•拉斯布里傑——17年來一直激勵我的主編：永不畏懼，永遠敦促我們變得更成功、更無畏、更勇敢。”

Fortunately, The Guardian has its own Cordelia in the shape of Patrick Wintour, its political editor. “Alan Rusbridger steps down as Editor in Chief of the Guardian in the summer of 2015 becoming chairman of the Scott Trust,” his more dignified tweet read.

幸運的是，《衛報》也有像考狄利婭（Cordelia，李爾王的三女兒——譯者注)式人物——政治編輯帕特里克•溫特(Patrick Wintour)。他的推文聽上去更莊重：“《衛報》主編阿蘭•拉斯布里傑將在2015年夏天離開，到斯科特信託(Scott Trust)任董事長。”

At The Economist, the other British media outfit to have lost an editor last week, tweeting activity by staff was more restrained. Only a few said they would miss their boss, and even fewer opted to fawn. “John Micklethwait, our outstanding editor at @TheEconomist becomes Bloomberg editor in chief. They are very lucky,” one wrote. Otherwise Economist journalists adopted the more tasteful Cordelia position and tweeted only the facts.

另一家英國媒體《經濟學人》(The Economist)的主編近期也將離任，他們的員工在Twitter上則更加剋制。只有幾個員工說他們會想念他們的老闆，選擇說奉承話的員工就更少了。“約翰•米克爾思韋特(John Micklethwait)，我們@TheEconomist的出色主編成爲了彭博社的主編。他們很幸運，”一個人寫道。其他記者的做法和考狄利婭一樣高雅，只在推文中陳述了事實。

What does this tell you? That Mr Micklethwait wasn’t a good editor? Or that The Economist still manages to cling to decorum — even on social networks? Or maybe there is a simpler explanation. There was no point in sucking up on Twitter, as one of the most remarkable things about the departing Economist editor is that he has managed to lead a media organisation without tweeting at all.

這告訴了我們什麼？米克爾思韋特不是一位好主編？還是說《經濟學人》即使是在社交網絡上，也能恪守禮儀？也許有一個更簡單的解釋。在Twitter上拍馬屁沒什麼意義，這位即將離開《經濟學人》的主編最非凡的一點是，他一條推文都沒發就領導了這家媒體機構。

An even more powerful objection to tweeted eulogies is that a legacy is more properly judged in years than in seconds.

對發推文大唱讚歌的行爲，還有一個更有力的反對理由，那就是要想正確評價一個人的功與過，最好等到數年以後，而不是當下就下結論。

This was brought home to me last week at the FT’s Christmas book sale. As colleagues scrambled for bargains, I noticed that being trampled underfoot was a sad copy of the book written by a man who received more instant plaudits than any I can remember when he quit his job three years ago. Last week there were no takers for Terry Leahy’s why-I’m-so-great management memoir, even with the price slashed by 95 per cent. Given that Tesco is halfway down the tubes partly as a result of Mr Leahy’s dodgy legacy, demand is bound to be limited for his homilies on the importance on truth, loyalty and courage. Even the title, Management in 10 Words, now seems like a blatant case of mis-selling. It is management in 312 — somewhat discredited — pages.

我是在英國《金融時報》最近的聖誕圖書促銷會上意識到這一點的。當同事們在搶購便宜書時，我注意到腳下有一本可憐的書正在被大家踩來踩去。書的作者在3年前辭職的時候，瞬間贏得了我記憶中最多的讚譽。促銷會上，沒人買特里•萊希(Terry Leahy)寫的這本通篇一副“我爲什麼這麼偉大”口吻的管理回憶錄，即使促銷價格是0.5折。部分緣於萊西不牢靠的“管理遺產”，Tesco已經完蛋了一半，他關於真理、忠誠和勇氣是多麼重要的說教必然銷路有限。連書的標題《十個詞搞定管理》(Management in 10 Words)現在看起來都是赤裸裸的虛假推銷。它明明應該叫“312頁搞定管理”，而且書中的內容也不太可信。