In his previous interviews and texts, he also often mentioned that what the interviewer has to do is to show, to restore the truth of the incident as much as possible, and to leave the judgment and conclusion to the audience. The interviewer itself has no position, which is the most basic requirement of this position.
It was also easy to see that she did just that. And always after a period of time after the incident, the various pros and cons will be calmly unfolded, the event itself will be restored to the greatest extent, and the parties involved in the event and the general audience will be placed in the same position to reach all the truth.
The main entanglement in the story is between the state and the law, between human feelings and principles. These are things that are judged superior in textbooks or other grand occasions. Reversed position in reality. The country is greater than the law, and national security is greater than the protection of personal privacy and freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the Constitution; favors are greater than principles, and the prosecution has repeatedly tried to use the child to defeat the reporter and a mother's heart, forcing him to tell the truth.
Just show the story without filming too hard. Just focus on presenting the incarceration numbers that keep accumulating at the bottom of the screen and her resolute, silent look. Even at the mention of her son she ended up being unable to control her emotions and nearly collapsed. Persistence, like the idealists themselves, has moving soul and strength and brilliance. Not to mention the long counterattack she said with tears in her back: Don't think I'm weak just because I'm a mother. I stick to what I think is right and worth sticking to. I have my reasons.
I have no intention of discussing state rights, individual rights, the implication and segregation of laws, which is undoubtedly a broad category. Just showing a small part of the story creates a sense of fear and reverence.
I remember being often asked why I want to study law, why I am obsessed with language, and I think of the answer, maybe it has always been in my subconscious: because they are things that are close to the truth. When there are too many choices that bother you, when the correct justice you were taught seems to be in doubt, you can still hold onto something like truth. My heart will be a little more stable, and I can still continue to play with what you believe in.
I think this is probably a time when these old and solid fundamental values have been forgotten. People are in a hurry with the rapid pace of life and the promotion of technological informatization. Not to mention in a country full of contradictions, divisions and disconnections. The grasp of the truth and the persistence of the truth are particularly important.
I still think of the very general statement: do we need the truth, or the truth we need. The truth is greater than the position, and the position is greater than the feeling. This sentence should be remembered by us as we face truth and choice when we need to make decisions and judgments.
View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews
