English expert came in and helped translate a few sentences

but the idea (the idea)that( the journalist must understand the law more profoundly than an ordinary citizen) rests on (rest on predicate: dependent)(an understanding of the established conventions object one) and (special responsibilities of the new media object two).

The meaning of this sentence is that this view (i.e., journalists must understand the law more deeply than ordinary citizens) is based on (understanding of existing conventions) and (responsibility for the new **).

The two () are for journalists, and it can be judged from the meaning, method 2: if special responsibilities and established conventions are juxtaposed, then (the original text should be changed to an understanding of the established conventions and of special responsibilities).

I hope you will adopt, thank you.

Grammatically, both understandings are correct. I think the semantically better thing is that conventions and responsibilities are juxtaposed.

That is: based on an understanding of the traditions that have been formed and the special responsibility of journalism. Because:

1. It is a bit awkward to "base a claim on the special responsibility of journalism". The special responsibility of the journalist has caused someone to hold this claim? On the contrary, an assertion is based on an understanding that is justified.

2. If the understanding of the subject and the explicit responsibilities of the subject are not mentioned, if they constitute a juxtaposition, they are actually not in line with the speaking convention.

3. There is no article in front of special responsibilities, although it is allowed as a plural noun, but as the basis for something, it is logically lacking.

Of course, none of these reasons are very hard and true, so I said earlier that they are grammatically correct. But when reading a sentence, you can't just consider the grammar, but also consider which semantics are the most logical, so I think there are advantages and disadvantages between the two understandings. FYI.

The idea that journalists must understand the law (which should be reworded, but I can't think of a more appropriate one) has a more far-reaching impact than the ordinary citizen's understanding of the established provisions and the special responsibilities of the general public.

I think it should be translated like this. Understanding and Established Conventions are juxtaposed.

Still, a better translation was found: the idea that journalists must know the law better than ordinary citizens is based on an understanding of the special duties of journalists and conventions as they are commonly called.

Analysis: The main stem of the sentence is the idea....rests on an understanding…, that is followed by the cognate clause of idea, and of is followed by a postposition definite that modifies understanding. According to the habit of Chinese, in this sentence, we choose to translate the clause first to avoid ambiguity.

I think the translation should be: The idea that journalists must have a deeper understanding of the law than the general public is based on an understanding of the established statutes and special responsibilities of the press.