• Prostitution is briefly mentioned once.
  • Woodward asks a collague: “You think he said it to impress you to get you to go to bed with him?”

Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


Every time a new class is opened or a new teacher comes, there must be questions to ask during the ice breaking period: who wants to be a reporter in the future?

If the memory is correct, whether it is a firm raised hand or a hand raised after looking around at the situation, it decreases year by year at a terrible speed. Unfortunately, this year, I finally became a member of the army who looked around and dared not look directly at the questioner. Finally, I decided to hide my hand under the table – but I swear I can also answer “who doesn’t want to be a reporter in the future?” Do the same when.

Yes, unconsciously, I became a wall rider. And feel ashamed of it.

It is true that as a journalist, in the past two years (or strictly speaking, one year), there are always too many times when you find that reality is inconsistent with theory / ideal. In this way, you begin to doubt as soon as you doubt, shake as soon as you doubt, and give up after shaking for a long time. China has no freedom of the press. This is probably the most commonly used expression by journalists who give up halfway to explain why they give up the so-called “news ideal”. Awesome, a thankless task, such as a journalist’s lack of status, such as a reporter’s hard work, such as reporters’ awesome money, such as journalists’ instability. Of course, none of the above is as loud as the “press freedom” based on force majeure. It seems that it still has a lingering rhyme with deep regret and helplessness.

Is the so-called freedom of the press a false attribution? Just look, after removing this high sounding cover, I dare not say I want to be a reporter.

The time when the story of the presidential team took place, and the 1970s when the Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward exposed the Watergate incident, has always been regarded as an irreparable glorious time in the history of journalism. In the first news reporting theory and skills class (TT) of this semester, Mark said that it will be mentioned in all journalism classes, because it is the best footnote to the freedom of the press in the United States and the strongest shot to strengthen students’ employment confidence. After Watergate, the Washington Post once advertised that it was a newspaper that could help the vice president find a job. I can’t pull any more.

In the film, Ben Bradlee said to Bernstein and Woodward in the yard the day before the report came out: “nothing’s riding on this, except the first amendment of the constitution, freedom of the press, and may the future of the country.” Its bloodthirsty ability is no less than hearing Henry Fonda say (not the original words) in the twelve angry men. One of the most sacred things in the American judicial system is that once the jury cannot reach an agreement, a person cannot be sentenced to death, which is also the reason why the United States is so powerful.

However, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution still exists, but there has been no report of the same weight that can shake all President’e men after Watergate – let alone the zipper door. After 9 / 11, although the U.S. government did not set up a news media monitoring department to review news reports like China, it implanted the reports they wanted to see into the media’s mind in a more subtle way, and finally made them put down their sharp pen and camera. Last week, Kenneth Howe, senior editor of the financial edition of the South China Morning Post, came to be a guest lecturer of TT. He talked about a story that he exposed the loss of public funds in a large class of a bank in the San Francisco Chronicle. I was surprised to find that the process of how he described how to confirm the source of information and how to ensure that he was not hurt by the possible consequences of the report was the same as Bernstein’s final confirmation of the Watergate report in the presidential team: asking professionals for help in various subjunctive tones, Then use the tricky way of “if what I say is wrong, interrupt me in N seconds”. However, Kenneth’s expectation of reporting the street is completely different from Bernstein’s eagerness in the film. Even I vaguely feel that Kenneth’s joy comes from the guarantee of his own safety after getting the positive answer of metaphor, while Bernstein comes from the pleasure of exposing an amazing secret as an investigative reporter. Indeed, Kenneth later said that when writing such reports, editor is not your best friend, because they always push you and reports with high sounding reasons to pursue sales and social response, but in the end, it doesn’t matter to them if they get into trouble. At this time, journalists need to weigh the pros and cons, push or pull.

Moreover, movies always deal with characters and events in an artistic way – for example, from the perspective of journalists, I don’t think Bernstein and Woodward strictly follow the journalist’s code in every investigation and interview, and they can get the full support of the respondents when they report to their homes at the first time. The real psychological reaction of BW two people in those years has long been unknown, but one thing is that even under the complete system, there may still be unpredictable and unprotected undercurrent, so it is still an individual who chooses whether to do or not.

So why?

In why do I write, George Orwell mentioned that journalists are driven by a strong sense of vanity and egocentrism. It’s sharp, but there’s nothing wrong – Kenneth also said that almost all outstanding journalists work with an unrealistic heart to save the world. Think about it carefully. The original idea of educating the public and punishing evil and promoting good with the power of words and language from the natural disaster war is not the kind of hopeless heroism, but what is it. Of course, you should never know that “hero” is not a too realistic word. It’s not because they don’t have the possibility and value of existence, but they won’t survive against edges and corners so easily – you’re doing well, but ten thousand people are shaking and willing to nail you up for burning.

Yesterday, looking through the old email records, I found that two years ago, I actually talked about my “news ideal” to strangers. It was so warm that it was going to burn my increasingly cold eyes today. At that time, I was so firmly convinced that even if the climate was not optimistic, but “forever patience, never come out, the world will still change, and will only let more crimes bury love”.

So, do it or not?

Perhaps you still need to think of your initial ambition. I hope you can always “live up to it and be a warm-blooded body when you start”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here