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， 但那只是因為我猶豫了太長時間， 所以錯過了時機。 對一個記者來說， 幾個星期後才對消息做出反應看起來可不大好。
Photo credit: Getty Images
隨後， 凱拉韋感歎道：
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， 而是在幾分鐘裡就做出反應。 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。 這不再是一件需要秘密進行的可恥的事， 而變成了一件可以大大方方， 越高調越好的事。
Photo credit: Getty Images
2015年， 《衛報》(Guardian)主編阿蘭•拉斯布裡傑(Alan Rusbridger)辭職後， Twitter上就上演了一幕奇觀。
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.”
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。
Photo credit: Getty Images
這些推文有一種古怪的吸引力， 拉斯布裡傑本人對其中一些讚美表示了感謝， 對其他一些則未做回復。
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， 拉斯布裡傑的確是一位優秀的主編， 而且他還會彈蕭邦(Chopin)的“第一敘事曲”(Ballade No. 1)。
當李爾王(King Lear)決定是時候將自己的王國分（carve up）給幾個女兒時， 他問她們有多愛他。
“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.
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。 ”二女兒雷根(Regan)則更勝一籌， 她說姐姐剛才說的話， 正是她要對父親說的， 但姐姐表達得還不夠充分。
而現實中， 兩個最有可能接替拉斯布裡傑的熱門人選（the most hotly tipped successors）發的推文簡直是在相互較勁， 讓人情不自禁地想起這對爭寵的姐妹。
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.”
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•拉斯布裡傑：一代才出一個的主編；有史以來最好的老闆；善於帶給我們驚喜。
Photo credit: Getty Images
不過幸運的是，《衛報》也有像考狄利婭（Cordelia，李爾王的三女兒——譯者注)式人物——政治編輯派翠克•溫特(Patrick Wintour)。
“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.
他的推文聽上去更莊重：“《衛報》主編阿蘭•拉斯布裡傑將在2015年夏天離開，到斯科特信託(Scott Trust)任董事長。”
另一家英國媒體《經濟學人》(The Economist)的主編離任前，他們的員工在Twitter上則更加克制（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.
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的出色主編成為了彭博社的主編。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。
Photo credit: Getty Images
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》即使是在社交網路上，也能恪守禮儀？也許有一個更簡單的解釋。
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.
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為，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。
Photo credit: Getty Images
不過幸運的是，《衛報》也有像考狄利婭（Cordelia，李爾王的三女兒——譯者注)式人物——政治編輯派翠克•溫特(Patrick Wintour)。
“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.
他的推文聽上去更莊重：“《衛報》主編阿蘭•拉斯布裡傑將在2015年夏天離開，到斯科特信託(Scott Trust)任董事長。”
另一家英國媒體《經濟學人》(The Economist)的主編離任前，他們的員工在Twitter上則更加克制（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.
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的出色主編成為了彭博社的主編。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。
Photo credit: Getty Images
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》即使是在社交網路上，也能恪守禮儀？也許有一個更簡單的解釋。
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.
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為，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。