Who should journalists speak for?

In the movie "Truth Comes First", the US president was assassinated at a public event. Although the assassination was unsuccessful, the United States carried out an assassination attempt on a country that might send the killer (the country is called Venezuela in the film, but it is actually very reminiscent of Iraq). retaliatory strike. "The Sun" reporter Rachel Armstrong has reliable information from "informants" that can prove that the US President's retaliatory war against the country was a selfish abuse of power, and he was getting the country without it. After participating in accurate information on the assassination, the war was still waged. On such a sensitive political subject, Rachel, as a reporter, hardly hesitated. She wrote the report at the first time, and the newspaper also published the report at the first time. This is where the story started. Those ardent admirers of the president shot and killed the reported female operative who was sent to Venezuela to gather intelligence and concluded that the country was not involved in the murder. Rachel was also arrested by the CIA on the grounds of endangering national security, and was threatened to name the "informant" in and out of court. As a reporter, she abides by professional ethics and pursues the principle of the supremacy of truth, and would rather be imprisoned than betray "informants". During her incarceration, the press that had been supporting her lost patience with her, and gradually turned the tide. Her husband, friends, bosses, and even her lawyers, under pressure from the government, persuaded her to explain” lineman". She was beaten by other inmates in the prison, gradually losing the trust of her son, and even her husband was empathetic because she chose to protect the "informer" regardless of her family's choice... She used to live a happy and happy life, because this report of her thoroughly destroyed.
The most classic place in the film is the few words that Rachel's lawyers told the judge when she was tried by the US Supreme Court: As time goes by, the power of the government becomes more and more abusive, those in power, no matter what. Any party that just wants to be immortal and the people are the victims, over the years, that kind of power has been abused, of course Ms. Armstrong can defer to the demands of the government, she can throw away her principles of secrecy, she can choose Go back to stay with her family, but if she does, it means no one will ever give her information again, which means no one will give information to her newspaper again, and then wait until tomorrow, When we arrest reporters at other newspapers, it makes those newspapers no longer able to get any intelligence, so we're emptying the First Amendment, so how do we know if our president is hiding a crime, or It was military officials who mistreated the prisoners. As a country, what is the nature of government when we cannot restrain those in power who have power, when government is not afraid to take any responsibility? This deserves our careful consideration. Imprisoning journalists, for other countries, is only for countries that fear her people, not for countries that want to cherish and protect her people.
Such a wonderful and sonorous speech, it is truly unforgettable! At the end of the film, Rachel, who never sells "informants" and insists on "truth first", was sentenced to two years in prison by the government for contempt of court. This is a helpless ending. Politics will always take precedence over the law, and national interests will always take precedence over personal gains and losses, even in a country like the United States that claims to be democratic, free, and human.
Because of my work, I have a lot of contact with the group of journalists. Rather than know them, fear them for some reason. In the real environment like China, there are really not many journalists who dare to tell the truth and are willing to tell the truth. Of course, the so-called truth is not something in the general sense of fighting, smuggling drugs, and corruption. Even if the reporter said the "truth" in a specific context, the editor would not dare to let it go, and even if the editor dared to let it go, the boss on duty would have to intercept it. That's why the arrogant deputy director asked the reporter in an aggressive tone: Are you going to speak for the party, or are you going to speak for the common people? Netizens took this sentence as the target of "putting the party against the common people", so they severely criticized and fought fiercely. In fact, the deputy director had no intention to tell the truth of the current press, so he must become the "cannon fodder" of public opinion. But let me ask, before the so-called "truth", how many reporters dare to pat their chests and feel their conscience to choose the latter?
Fortunately, the Internet is a free and loose medium that is difficult to be controlled by politics, and more and more "truths" are surging in front of the screen, so who the reporters speak for may gradually become less important.

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews