At first glance, this film is a story of journalists insisting on journalism ethics, but as a journalism student, I am very aware that this is not the whole story. In a place without conscience and basic justice, true press freedom and press ethics cannot exist and are not needed.
Although the U.S. news laws and related amendments provide for freedom of press and speech, with the increasing domestic threat in the United States in recent years, many newly passed laws and regulations, including the Patriot Act, are increasingly interfering. The sacred private realm of citizens is inevitable from residence to thought. However, American law now believes that journalists should transcend ethical sources of information under the premise of national security. In reality, many journalists are like this, even avoiding news that may cause trouble at the beginning. At first it was thought that Rachel Armstrong would soon succumb to the high pressure of the court and the detention center, but this woman did not do so.
I think the real suspense of the whole movie is not who is the one who provided information to the reporter, but whether this woman can persist in the end.
After watching the film, the most worthy of discussion are these questions:
1. What does Rachel Armstrong insist on?
I started this news because I needed to report the truth. This is the job of the reporter. From the look she told the editor about this exclusive news, Rachel was very excited, and she also had a hint of vanity that she wanted to become famous in one fell swoop. After all, this kind of news that can compete for the Pulitzer Prize is what all journalists dream of. But for the sake of vanity, it is not worthy of her to be detained for contempt of court. Later, when faced with special prosecutors and judges and juries, she insisted on the grounds that journalists have the responsibility to protect the source of information and also have the privilege of keeping the source of information confidential. However, the special prosecutor used the extremely grandiose reason of "national security" in court, which made her insistence unreasonable. A few months later, even Rachel's own lawyers stepped back and began to persuade her to open her mouth.
Rachel's words that impressed the lawyer said it all: If she knew that she would fall into the situation she is today, she might not make this report as a mother. But at this point, there is no turning back. She must keep it secret, and more importantly, it is the right thing to do.
Although the country can be overwhelming, but she can at least choose not to surrender. The phrase "national security" is not enough to eliminate all individual rights. Where is it reasonable and legal to imprison a reporter who keeps a secret for nearly a year? This is just a confrontation between sociality and naturalness.
Socialization is to allow natural persons to re-train a set of behavioral laws and moral laws, allowing people to independently choose the applicable ethics in different environments, so as to better adapt to the needs of survival. When everything becomes a habit, the set of fundamental moral and ethical principles passed down from generation to generation will gradually shake or even disappear. All that is left is "camera moving".
The prosecutor said in the tone of allegiance to the government position that this is his job and he has full rights to do what he did to Rachel. is this correct? Of course, this is the case in a certain ethics. It is believed that the treatment of work is to be done by unscrupulous means. This is the requirement of society for qualified members of the society. Ethics can change so quickly under different conditions that it may sometimes contradict each other. In a society where labor is tightly divided and competition is fierce, this is widely accepted and recognized, although it does not mean that it is right to do so.
Rachel’s persistence has become out of fashion, and some people even agree with the prosecutor’s point of view, "She shelters criminals and employment is a criminal." This is a judgment from a social perspective. But we must realize that this is only an ethical conclusion, not to mention that this ethics is derived, secondary, and transformed.
We originally had a system of ethics and morality, which is the code of ethics and conscience in people's hearts, which is called "natural morality" in philosophy. This basic sense of right and wrong-what is what, what is not. It is either black or white in an absolute sense. It's like what Rachel's son said in the car, "You are making a small report, it is wrong to make a small report!" This is a kind of intuition that a person has at birth.
Rachel has always insisted on this kind of natural morality. The little girl from her source gave the information without knowing it and she promised to keep it secret. In natural moral judgment, the truth is worth pursuing. It is right to expose sins and keep secrets; but it is wrong to inform, and it is wrong to betray a contract. Rachel just followed her conscience.
Most of the time, the autonomous morality that society cultivates us to adapt to is consistent with natural morality. People don’t feel wrong. But there are also many times when Rachel encounters difficult choices. Only at this time can we see people. The rivalry.
2. In order to uphold natural morality, how much is it worth?
This question may seem rational at first, but it is actually meaningless.
For a person who believes in natural morality, persistence cannot be measured. Just like the well-known social debate in China a few years ago, "Is it worth it for college students to save old farmers and drowning?" It is what people should do to save the dead and heal the wounded and act bravely.
I do not deny that autonomous morality, or the various codes of ethics that are popular in this society, will be more efficient and "rational." Most people do this, but this will not ultimately make our world. become better.
Rachel had almost nothing for her persistence: she was beaten in prison, restricted her freedom, and severely mentally devastated. After more than a year of imprisonment, she still had two years in prison. She lost custody and saw her son alienate herself, and her husband quickly changed his mind. . This woman, this reporter, paid too much for a little persistence. What she has given is even more than what people demand of a reporter, a mother, and a woman.
In the end, she simply gave her wedding ring to the prosecutor as "trophies." You must know that she was reluctant to take it off when she first went to jail more than a year ago. Marriage is a social arrangement for people, and the rapid breakdown of this marriage is because the husband chooses to take care of himself and his morality is another. This is just a very ironic explanation, the ethics of "camera moving" can't have happiness at all. The director also expressed his opinion through the mouth of the lawyer in the film: the two should not be together at all. Natural morality and autonomous morality are fundamentally different, and the superficial happiness is only because it has not yet reached the test time.
3. Whistleblower and whistleblower
People should not inform. But many people have done such a thing. In the film, there were some whistleblowers. In the director Rod Larry’s 2000 "Underworld Rush", some whistleblowers, some whistleblow in the McKinsey era in the United States, some whistle whistle at the Berlin Wall, and some whistle whistle at the Soviet purge. Sadly It was during the Chinese Cultural Revolution that even "information was glorious." What an upside-down world is this? !
I have read several articles by Zhang Yihe and Ms. Nie Gangnu's criminal files, and I have read Ba Jin's memoirs. I have always known what happened, but the evidence is even more shocking.
These people can find 10,000 reasons to say that they are under pressure and are compelled to say that their nature is not like this. The fact is that their nature is like this, and the whistleblower's nature is like this, there is no excuse.
The Bible's "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" and the old Chinese saying "a debt for blood to pay for blood" are regarded as uncivilized and barbaric in modern society. But is a civilized and elegant way enough to uphold justice and punish evil? We believe in the law only because we have chosen the rules of the game in society. It's a pity that this rule can't cover everything but the selfishness of power.
Historically, whistleblowers often live very well. Their sins can often be taboo or hidden for political reasons. Those who have been informed because their beliefs, morals and ethics are different from those of the "powerful" have been the cannon fodder of history. It is wrong to judge directly with natural morality. The whistleblower is shameful, and if the whistleblower causes harm to others, it should be held responsible. What is unfair and unjust is that these people often escape sanctions. How can good people accept this fact?
In the simple concept of justice and punishment, "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" and "blood debt for blood" means that guilt must be investigated and never forgiven. But when it comes to politics, the reality is frustrating. The whistleblower is fine. For more serious crimes, the governments of all countries still regularly report on the issue.
The Jews did not hesitate: Mossad and the Jewish Revenge Organization have been hunting down the Nazi murderers after the war. The culprit Eichmann was captured in Argentina and sent back to Israel for trial. He was sentenced to death for 15 crimes. The body was incinerated and sunk into the Mediterranean. Another known as the "Butcher in Riga" Herbert Cooks was shot to death by the Avengers in a South American country In the corner of the corner.
If we treat whistleblowers and crimes of human nature with this attitude, the situation will not be worse than it is now.
4.
Why choose whistleblower regarding the environment and personal choice ? It's simply because it makes life less difficult and profitable.
In fact, choices always exist, right and wrong, good and evil, hard and easy, life and death, these choices can even be known at a glance. You can stick to the natural and simple view of right and wrong and live or die cleanly, instead of taking "shortcuts."
It's all because of the fact that people themselves are not objective, and the society they live in is also to blame. The society allows whistleblowers, shelters and even rewards whistleblowers, so that this kind of thing cannot be stopped. Even going a bit further, whistleblowing is just an act of moral deviation, and there are many others. And so many tragedies are because justice cannot be done, and because the interaction between environment and manpower sinks into a spiral of degeneration.
The reason why the society is like this is because the operation of power is after all the rule of the minority over the majority. When necessary, those in power use tactics, high pressure, confusion, and do everything. On the one hand, it is the need for self-protection, and on the other hand, because it has this ability-violence (national violence).
I think that in an environment with good integrity, people can make the right choices. Unfortunately, as Li Ao wrote in the article "Heaven Is Not Ours": The dying old Soviet "professional revolutionist" Rubashov once said: "We are all gone! Only you are left, history is In your hands, I want to be able to make you understand my dreams and the mistakes I made at the beginning... My son, don't expect to be able to make heaven forcibly!" What a miserable cry! The profound meaning of this wailing is to tell people that heaven is elusive. Those who want to create heaven on earth are a good dream, a dream that was wrong at the beginning, and that heaven is impossible to achieve. of.
So the more realistic question is-the environment is already like this, what should we do?
Marx Weber said: "In countless circumstances, obtaining good results is linked to the determination of the same person to pay the price." "One has to be convinced that even if the world is stupid in his eyes, it is not worth it at all. Dedicated to it, he can still have no complaints; even in the face of this situation, he can still say;'wait and see!' Only after this step can he say that he has heard the call."
No matter when, this It is the path chosen by citizens with a conscience and a sense of mission. Although thousands of people will go there, they will make up their minds to pay the price.
5. The country and the individual
is a grand theme. I just want to say a little bit of my own opinion: Some sages said that in order to be free, people must always fight against the country. It is so difficult for individuals to choose a code of ethics, and our expectations of the country should be lowered, because the politicians are in control of the country.
In the film, just because of the scandal of the national military, the female reporter was quickly regarded as a "traitor" or "criminal". She rejected the will of the country and was abused in the state apparatus. An individual with a smaller power confronts an almost omnipotent country and government head-on, and the pain of no hope of victory will engulf people.
The state has never been tolerant of people who go against its will and obstruct its interests. Many actions taken by the United States after 9/11 have nakedly deprived individuals of their rights. This is an expansion of the country and of those in power. Labeled as a traitor or terrorist, the state can do whatever it wants, and torture it in prisons on a small island in Cuba, without even having to troublesome judicial procedures. Under absolute power, there must be absolute corruption. The state often confuses its own powers and rights. It must be vigilant and must be supervised through the media of freely responsible persons. This is especially true in China.
At the end of the film, without causing too much harm, the female reporter tells the reason for obtaining the information in exchange for a three-year sentence reduction. She didn't hold on to the end either. This is the transparency of the director himself, the reality is helpless, and the movie will not have a happy ending.
But the important thing is that this woman persevered in the most difficult time. And only when it is difficult, can it show the meaning of persistence. A great man is inseparable from his principles. His natural morals are his principles, and these are worth any price.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
