At first glance, this is a story about journalists adhering to journalistic professional ethics, but as a journalism student, I know that this is not the whole story. In a place without conscience and basic justice, true press freedom and journalism ethics are impossible and unnecessary.
Although the U.S. press law and related amendments provide for freedom of the press and the ability to speak freely, with the increasing sense of domestic threats in the United States in recent years, many newly passed laws, including the Patriot Act, Regulations are increasingly interfering with the sacred private domain of citizens, and no one is spared, from their families to their hearts. But U.S. law now holds that journalists should cross an ethical line and hand over their sources for the sake of national security. The reality is that many reporters do just that, even avoiding potentially troublesome stories in the first place. At first, people thought that Rachel Armstrong would soon succumb to the high pressure of the court and the guards, but she did not.
I think the real suspense of the entire film is not who provided the information to the reporter, but whether the woman would follow through.
After watching the movie, these questions are most worthy of discussion:
1. What did Rachel do? What did Armstrong insist on?
At the beginning of this news, because it is necessary to report the truth, this is the reporter's duty. From the look on her face when she told the editor this exclusive news, Rachel was very excited and had a hint of wanting to be famous. Vanity. After all, it’s every journalist’s dream to have such news compete for the Pulitzer Prize. But vanity is not worth being charged with contempt of court. Later, before the special prosecutor, judge and jury, she insisted that journalists had a duty to protect their sources and had privilege. But the special prosecutor used the irrefutable reason of "national security" in court to make her persistence unreasonable. Months later, even Rachel's own lawyers were backing away from the case, trying to persuade her to open up.
The words Rachel used to impress her lawyer said it all: If she had known she would end up like this, as a mother, she might not have done this reporting. But when things have reached this point, there is no turning back. She had to keep this secret, and more importantly, it was the right thing to do.
The state may exert pressure, but she can at least choose not to yield. The phrase "national security" is not enough to eliminate all individual rights. What is the rationality and legality of imprisoning a journalist who kept secrets for nearly a year? It’s just society versus nature.
Socialization is a process that allows natural people to re-establish a set of behavioral norms and moral principles, allowing people to choose their own moral norms in different environments, so as to better adapt to the needs of survival. When everything becomes a habit, the basic moral and ethical norms passed down from generation to generation will gradually be shaken or even disappear. All that's left is the camera.
The prosecutor said in a tone of loyalty to his government position that this was his job and that he had every right to do such a thing to Rachel. Isn't that so? Of course, in a certain moral code, it is like this, that is, to treat work is to complete it at all costs, which is also what society requires of capable members of society. Ethics can change rapidly under different conditions to the point where they are sometimes inconsistent. But in a society with clear division of labor and fierce competition, this is widely accepted and recognized, although this does not mean that it is correct to do so.
Rachel's insistence became inappropriate, and some people even echoed the prosecutor, "She is shielding criminals, and employment is a crime." These are all judgments from a social perspective. But we must admit that this is only an ethical conclusion, not to mention that this ethics is derivative, secondary, and transformed.
We originally had an ethical system, moral norms, and conscience, which are called "natural morality" in philosophy. This basic sense of right and wrong - what is and what is not. It's definitely black and white. As Rachel's son said in the car: "You're snitching, snitching is wrong! Snitching is wrong!" This is people's innate intuition.
What Rachel has always insisted on is this innate sense of morality. Her source, the little girl, provided the information without her knowledge, and she promised to keep it secret. In the judgment of natural morality, the truth is worth pursuing, exposing crimes and keeping secrets is right; whistleblowing is wrong, betrayal and breach of contract are also wrong. Rachel just followed her conscience.
In most cases, the autonomous morality that society has trained us to adapt is consistent with natural morality, and people do not feel bad about it, but there are also many times, like what happened to Rachel Again, difficult choices need to be made, and it is at such times that the high and low of human beings will be revealed.
2. How much is the cost to comply with natural morality?
This question seems reasonable at first glance, but it actually makes no sense.
For a person who believes in natural morality, persistence is immeasurable. This is like the famous debate in Chinese society a few years ago: "Is it worth it for a college student to save an old farmer who fell into the water? The answer is, there is no whether it is worth it, there is only whether it should be done. The answer is there is no whether it is worth it.
I do not deny that autonomous morality, or that the various moral and ethical codes popular in our society are more efficient and "rational", most people do the same, but it does not ultimately make our The world is a better place
Rachel has little to show for her perseverance: she was beaten and restrained in prison, she was severely mentally disabled, and her sentence lasted more than a year in prison. With two years to go, she lost custody of her son, whom she saw estranged from her, and her husband was rapidly changing his mind. This woman, this reporter, had sacrificed so much for a little persistence. It even exceeded people's expectations for a reporter, a mother, and a woman.
In the end, she simply gave the wedding ring to the prosecutor as a "trophy". You know, more than a year ago. , she had just been imprisoned and did not want to take off the ring. Marriage is an arrangement made by society, and the reason why this marriage broke down so quickly was because the husband chose to be lonely. This is very different. Ironically illustrating the fact that the "ready to be on camera" morality cannot bring happiness. The director also expressed his opinion in a lawyer's tone: these two people should not be together at all. There is an essential difference in morality. The superficial happiness is only because the time for testing has not yet come.
3. Whistleblowers and whistleblowers
People should not snitch, but many people do. . In director Rod Larry's 2000 film "Dark Reign", there were whistleblowers during the McKinsey era in the United States, whistleblowers under the Berlin Wall, whistleblowers during the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, and sadly, during the Cultural Revolution in China, even " Whistleblowing is glorious." This is really a world turned upside down!
I have read several articles by Ms. Zhang Yihe, Nie Gannu's criminal files, and Ba Jin's memoirs, and I have always known these things What's even more shocking is the overwhelming evidence.
All these people can come up with 10,000 reasons why they did it under pressure and desperation, and they didn't do it. Their nature. In fact, this is their nature, this is the nature of all informers, there is no excuse.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" in the Bible, ancient China. "Blood for blood" is considered uncivilized and barbaric in modern society. But is a civilized and elegant way enough to deliver justice and punish evil and promote good? We believe in the law just because we choose the rules of the game in society. Unfortunately, this rule is not all-encompassing and contains the power of selfishness.
Historically, whistleblowers have tended to fare well. Their crimes are often silenced or hidden for political reasons. And those who became whistleblowers because their beliefs and moral values ??were different from those of the "powerful" have become cannon fodder in history. If judged directly by natural morality, all this is wrong. Whistleblowing is disgraceful and those who do it and cause harm to others should be held accountable. These people often go unpunished, which is neither fair nor unjust. How do kind people accept this fact?
In the simple view of justice and punishment, "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" and "blood for blood" means that guilty must be punished and will never be forgiven. But when it comes to politics, the sordid reality is daunting. Governments are often still reluctant to report more serious crimes.
The Jews did not hesitate: after the war, Mossad and Jewish Revenge continued to hunt Nazi murderers. Eichmann was arrested in Argentina and sent back to Israel for trial. He was sentenced to death for 15 crimes. His body was incinerated and then sunk into the Mediterranean; Herbert Cooks, known as the "Butcher of Riga", was killed by the Avengers. . Another Herbert Cooks, known as the "Butcher of Riga", was killed by the Avengers in a corner of a South American country.
It wouldn’t be any worse if we treated whistleblowers and human sin this way.
4. Regarding environment and personal choice
Why did you choose to whistle-blow? It's simple, because it makes life less tiring and makes less money.
In fact, choices have always existed, right and wrong, good and evil, difficult and easy, life and death. These choices are even clear at a glance. You can stick to the simple view of right and wrong in natural morality, be clean in life or death, and not take "shortcuts".
It is not objective to blame people for this kind of thing, and the society we live in is also to blame. Society allows whistleblowers and even rewards whistleblowers, and this kind of thing cannot be stopped. Even if we go a little further, whistleblowing is only one type of moral deviation in human behavior, and there are many others. And how many tragedies have occurred because justice has not been served, and because the environment and interpersonal relationships have fallen into a whirlpool of depravity.
The reason why society is like this is because the operation of power is, in the final analysis, the rule of the minority obeying the majority. When necessary, those in power will use all means to use high pressure, confuse the public, and use all possible means. On the one hand, this is the need for self-protection, and on the other hand, it is simply because it has the power to do so - violence (state violence).
I believe that in a decent and good environment, people can make the right choices. Regrettably, as Li Ao wrote in the article "Heaven Does Not Belong to Us", the old Soviet "professional revolutionary" Rubashov said on his deathbed: "We are all gone! Only you are left, and history is in the hands of In your hands, I want you to understand what my dream is and what I did wrong from the beginning...My child, don't think that hard work can create heaven!" What a sad cry. ! The far-reaching significance of this wailing is to tell people that heaven is out of reach. Those who want to create heaven on earth are a good dream, but a good dream that was wrong from the beginning. Heaven is within reach and out of reach.
Therefore, a more pertinent question is - since the environment is like this, what should our generation do?
Max Weber said: "In countless cases, the achievement of good results is related to a person's determination to pay the price." 'Only when he has done this can he be said to have heard the call. "
In any case, this is the path chosen by citizens with conscience and a sense of mission. They paid the price resolutely regardless of the opposition of tens of millions of people.
5. The State and the Individual
This is a grand theme. I just want to express my opinion: Some sages said that for freedom, people must always fight against the state. If it is so difficult for individuals to choose moral principles, We expect even less from the country because it is the politicians who control it.
In the film, a female reporter is quickly and easily regarded as a "traitor" and "criminal" just because she exposed the scandal of the country's military; she rejected the will of the country and was then dismissed by the country. The machine tore it into pieces. A weaker individual faces an almost omnipotent country and government with no hope of victory. This pain will consume a person.
The country will never tolerate those who go against its will or hinder its interests. After the 9-11 incident, many actions in the United States were a blatant deprivation of individual rights and an expansion of the country and those in power. The state can do whatever it wants to people labeled as traitors and terrorists, locking them up in prisons on the island of Cuba and torturing them arbitrarily, without even going through judicial proceedings. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The state confuses power with rights from time to time and must be vigilant and must exercise oversight through free and responsible media. This is especially true in China.
At the end of the film, without causing too much harm, the female reporter told the reason why she provided the information in exchange for a three-year sentence reduction. She didn't last until the end. This is a common problem of the director himself. Reality is hopeless, and the movie will not have a happy ending.
But the important thing is that this woman persisted in the most difficult time. Only in difficult times can the meaning of persistence be reflected. A great man never strays from his principles. His natural morals are his principles, and they are worth any price.