There's no principle worth sticking to like this

Reid 2022-04-21 09:02:59

Identify yourself first, journalism student. If I had seen this movie a few years earlier during my school days, I might have rated it higher, after all, the heroine is synonymous with "journalism ideal" and "journalism professionalism". The plot of the film is very simple: female reporter Rachel gets information from her informant and discloses the government's fraudulent behavior. Later, on the grounds of "endangering national security", he was asked to reveal the informant. Rachel refused and was jailed for two years for it.

You can say that Rachel is sticking to many things in a tragic and solemn way, it can be "journalism ethics", it can be "professionalism", or it can be said a little bigger, is sticking to the "truth" mentioned in the title of the film . But for that, my opinion is the title: There is no principle worth holding on to like this. No matter what content you replace this object with, professionalism, ideals, integrity, truth, kindness, humanity, and even national security and national justice. Yes, no, no! Have! appoint! what!

I know that such a point of view will appear very philistine and self-interested. You can even say that this is nothing more than what Yang Zhu's philosophy called "pulling a hair to benefit the world, and doing nothing." Yes, this is nothing new. Yes, but this is the value orientation that every ordinary person should have. I really like a sentence said by Xiong Taihang: "We are all mortals who are mortal. One day you will know that you cannot save the whole world." We like fairness, justice, integrity, and all "big words" Waving the flag and shouting, but this kind of behavior often reaps only the "false touch" of self-indulgence.

The heroine has been in the detention center and prison for almost three years. What has she gained? Her husband betrayed herself and started a family with others; the son she loved gradually became estranged from her and drifted away from her; the protagonist in the report was shot and killed; the informant she wanted to protect, the family was torn apart. See what her so-called "journalism ideals" and "work ethic" have given her back? A Pulitzer Prize nomination, but as Rachel puts it, "just a nomination". The news organization is functioning normally, and people around her gradually forget it. The crowd who had been excited about her experience had already dispersed after 3 years, and what did she gain except for a piece of chicken feathers? nothing!

Throwing yourself into a grand concept often only moves yourself. Like the goddess you are striving for, you ate instant noodles for a month and saved money to buy her a bag. What do you expect to get? Goddess of love? Come on, when you're done with this, it doesn't matter whether your gift is favored or thrown into the trash, what you get is nothing more than a piece of material that you can brag about in the future: "Dude back then , I've really been crazy about love..." Everyone did such stupid things when they were young and frivolous, but when faced with many public issues, you can find that most keyboard warriors are still the rambunctious idiots back then .

They firmly believe in using the torch to guide the torch, light up the dimmer with the twilight, and let a drop of their own water converge into a trickle. However, where the trickle runs to, you can't get there, but a drop of your water can actually moisten the ground under your feet , but they are disdainful to do this kind of thing. I do not deny that when women are violated, we have to run and speak out for women's rights. But I will definitely remind the women around me, "You must be more careful when you go out, and try not to walk alone at night." Because I'm not sure that online impassioned can turn society around in a short time, but I know that such reminders will definitely increase their safety factor. The paradox is that even such a well-meaning reminder should be condemned in the current public opinion environment. If one day, Rachel's colleagues confessed to the informant in order to protect their family, they would be cast aside by the whole society. I don't know if that time will be the boom or the end of journalism.


A more realistic question is, does what Rachel insists on must be the "truth"? Rachel got information from her informant and made a report, what about the voice of the government? It is not mentioned in the film, and according to the tough attitude of the FBI, the government is unlikely to speak out. So how do we know what the other half of the puzzle is, and will it have a significant impact on this so-called "truth"?

If you pay attention to a few public issues in recent years, you will find that things often turn around, and the slaps in the face come faster and faster. It's not that the world is too capricious, it's that our information travels too fast. If there really is a so-called "truth", then it must have infinite aspects. There is no need for the media and the parties to "lie". They only need to show a limited number of aspects, so that the audience can see the complete picture. different looks. When the original media was not so developed, the media would at least cut a few more cuts on different sides, and then bring it to the public. In the era of self-media, everyone can show the side that they see, and the results of the piece together are of course all kinds of changes, and each is different.

"Truth" is like a game of "cutting half the stick every time", it can always be played as long as you want; and as long as you play it long enough, it will definitely change qualitatively. So, is "truth" a thing that actually "is"? Just like the Buddha pointing at a mountain, is there really such a thing called a "mountain"? The longer I graduated, the more uncertain I became about this question.

The original title of the film was "Nothing But the Truth", but maybe, the truth is noting.

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading

Nothing But the Truth quotes

  • Rachel Armstrong: I'm afraid I'm gonna disappoint you, Mr. Dubois.

    Dubois: That's not possible.

  • Agent O'Hara: She's never had her Vassar ass in jail. She'll break.

    Erica Van Doren: I don't know. I met her. I looked her in the eye. She's a water-walker.