概括大意与完成句子：
The Storyteller
1.Steven Spielberg has always had one goal: to tell as many great stories to as many people as will listen．And that’s what he has always been about．The son of a computer scientist and a pianist, Spielberg spent his early childhood in New Jersey and, later, Arizona．From the very beginning, his fertile imagination filled his young mind with images that would later inspire his filmmaking．
　　
2.Even decades later, Spielberg says he has clear memories of his earliest years, which are the origins of some of his biggest hits．He believes that E．T．is the result of the difficult years leading up to his parent’s 1966 divorce, “It is really about a young boy who was in search of some stability in his life．”“He was scared of just about everything,” recalls his mother, Leah Adler．“When trees brushed against the house, he would head into my bed．And that’s just the kind of scary stuff he would put in films like Poltergeist．”
3.Spielberg was 11 when he first got his hands on his dad’s movie camera and began shooting short flicks about flying saucers and World War ΙΙ battles．Spielberg’s talent for scary storytelling enabled him to make friends．On Boy Scout camping trips, when night fell, Spielberg became the center of attention．“Steven would start telling his ghost stories,” says Richard Y．Hoffman Jr．, leader of Troop 294, “and everyone would suddenly get quiet so that they could all hear it．”
4.Spielberg moved to California with his father and went to high school there, but his grades were so bad that he barely graduated．Both UCLA and USC film schools rejected him, so he entered California State University at Long Beach because it was close to Hollywood．Spielberg was determined to make movies, and he managed to get an unpaid, non-credit internship（实习）in Hollywood．Soon he was given a contract, and he dropped out of college．He never looked back．
5.Now, many years later, Spielberg is still telling stories with as much passion as the kid in the tent．Ask him where he gets his ideas, Spielberg shrugs．“The process for me is mostly intuitive (凭直觉的),” he says．“There are films that I feel I need to make, for a variety of reasons, for personal reasons, for reasons that I want to have fun, that the subject matter is cool, that I think my kids will like it．And sometimes I just think that it will make a lot of money, like the sequel(续集) to Jurassic Park．”

概括大意与完成句子：
The Storyteller
1.Steven Spielberg has always had one goal: to tell as many great stories to as many people as will listen．And that’s what he has always been about．The son of a computer scientist and a pianist, Spielberg spent his early childhood in New Jersey and, later, Arizona．From the very beginning, his fertile imagination filled his young mind with images that would later inspire his filmmaking．
　　
2.Even decades later, Spielberg says he has clear memories of his earliest years, which are the origins of some of his biggest hits．He believes that E．T．is the result of the difficult years leading up to his parent’s 1966 divorce, “It is really about a young boy who was in search of some stability in his life．”“He was scared of just about everything,” recalls his mother, Leah Adler．“When trees brushed against the house, he would head into my bed．And that’s just the kind of scary stuff he would put in films like Poltergeist．”
3.Spielberg was 11 when he first got his hands on his dad’s movie camera and began shooting short flicks about flying saucers and World War ΙΙ battles．Spielberg’s talent for scary storytelling enabled him to make friends．On Boy Scout camping trips, when night fell, Spielberg became the center of attention．“Steven would start telling his ghost stories,” says Richard Y．Hoffman Jr．, leader of Troop 294, “and everyone would suddenly get quiet so that they could all hear it．”
4.Spielberg moved to California with his father and went to high school there, but his grades were so bad that he barely graduated．Both UCLA and USC film schools rejected him, so he entered California State University at Long Beach because it was close to Hollywood．Spielberg was determined to make movies, and he managed to get an unpaid, non-credit internship（实习）in Hollywood．Soon he was given a contract, and he dropped out of college．He never looked back．
5.Now, many years later, Spielberg is still telling stories with as much passion as the kid in the tent．Ask him where he gets his ideas, Spielberg shrugs．“The process for me is mostly intuitive (凭直觉的),” he says．“There are films that I feel I need to make, for a variety of reasons, for personal reasons, for reasons that I want to have fun, that the subject matter is cool, that I think my kids will like it．And sometimes I just think that it will make a lot of money, like the sequel(续集) to Jurassic Park．”

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

The writer believes that shooting people’s nightmares is justifiable.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

阅读判断：下面的短文后列出了7个句子，请根据短文的内容对每个句子作出判断：如果该句提供的是正确信息，请选择A;如果该句提供的是错误信息，请选择B;如果该句的信息文中没有提及，请选择C。
When Our Words Collide
“Wanna buy a body?” That was the opening line of more than a few phone calls I got from freelance(自由职业 ) photographers when I was a photo editor at U.S. News. Like many in the mainstream press, I wanted to separate the world of photographers into “them”, who trade in picture of bodies or chase celebrities, and “us”, the serious news people. But after 16 years in that role. I came to wonder whether the two worlds were easily distinguishable.
Working in the reputable world of journalism, I assigned photographers to cover other people’s nightmares. I justified invading moments of grief, under the guise(借口) of the reader's right to know. I didn’t ask photographers to trespass(冒犯) or to stalk(跟踪),but I didn’t have to: I worked with pros(同行) who did what others did: talking their way into situations or shooting from behind police lines to get pictures I was after. And I wasn’t alone.
In the aftermath of a car crash or some other hideous incident when ordinary people are hurt or killed, you rarely see photographers pushing past rescue workers to capture the blood and gore(血雨腥风). But you are likely to see the local newspaper and television photographers on the scene - and fast.
How can we justify our behavior? Journalists are taught to separate doing the job from worrying about the consequence of publishing what they record. Repeatedly, they are reminded of a news-business dictum(格言): leave your conscience in the office. You get the picture of the footage: the decision whether to print or air it comes later. A victim may lie bleeding, unconscious, or dead: your job is to record the image. You put away your emotions and document the scene.
We act this way partly because we know that the pictures can have important meaning. Photographs can change deplorable(凄惨的) situations by mobilizing public outrage or increase public understanding.
However, disastrous events often bring out the worst in photographers and photo editors. In the first minutes and hours after a disaster occurs, photo agencies buy pictures. Often an agency buys a picture from a local newspaper or an amateur photographer and put it up for bid by major magazines. The most keenly sought “exclusives” command tens of thousands of dollars through bidding contests.
Many people believe that journalists need to change the way they do things, and it’s our pictures that annoy people the most. Readers may not believe, as we do, that there is a distinction between sober-minded “us” and sleazy(低级庸俗的) “them”. In too many cases, by our choices of images as well as how we get them, we prove our readers right.

This was disaster on a cosmic scale.