I just saw a post on imdb, and the owner pointed out that the ending actually undermines the rationality of the entire film. Because if the original source is actually a child, then Rachel can tell the prosecutor this fact in secret, and the case will be tried in secret—in this case, no one will be harmed—allison and the public. Without knowing it, Rachel can save herself from prison and reunite with her children. In other words, according to the plot setting, Rachel has been making senseless sacrifices.
I agree that if Rachel does this, no one will be hurt. But I don't think that Rachel's persistence is a senseless sacrifice-because if she does, then she will violate the professional ethics and ethics of journalists.
Here, the professional ethics and ethics of the reporter should be: if the source does not want any third party to know their identity, or if the disclosure of the identity of the source will cause harm to the source, then the reporter should not disclose the relevant information in any way. people.
On the basis of confirming that revealing the identity of the source will basically not harm the source, what we need to judge is whether doing so will violate the will of the source.
Although Allison clearly told Rachel that she hoped that Rachel would not tell others what she knew, she did not make it clear that if this information is known to everyone, her identity can still be revealed. And her attitude at this time is not to be inquired, because once inquired, it may hurt her.
What is certain is that she has never said that her identity can be revealed. In this case, in order to defend the professional ethics of journalists as completely as possible, and to protect the information source to the greatest extent, I think it is the right choice to insist on not revealing the identity of the information source.
Of course, there are still some problems. For example, if the identity of the original source is notified to the prosecutor and the court, so that the case can be closed as soon as possible, won’t allison's life crippled by the loss of his mother be restored to peace as soon as possible (his father will be ruled out) ?
The more important question is, did Rachel make a mistake from the beginning and violate the professional ethics of a reporter from the beginning? Allison's mother was certainly not killed by her, but to a certain extent she died because of her. Although Rachel's report is helpful to the public interest, it "utilized" a little girl's innocence and recklessness, which in turn destroyed her family and normal life-and such results are completely foreseeable by Rachel.
Allison is just a little girl, and she never thought to be the source of a news report that revealed her mother's identity. Don't forget what she said to Rachel: Don't tell anyone this.
Therefore, Rachel’s suffering in prison is certainly the price she paid for the public interest, freedom of speech, and moral principles. At the same time, to a certain extent, it can also be regarded that she “utilized” and harmed a little girl. What about the punishment?
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
