In an unprecedented scene, US President Trump was actually silenced by his own media.
This is definitely a major event that can be recorded in the history of the United States and even in the history of mankind.
When we describe a person in power as being vacated, we often use the phrase that the decree does not produce so-and-so, which means that his order cannot even be conveyed in his own capital or his own official residence.
Now it is good, as the president of the United States is still in office, Trump's voice can not say that he can not go out of the White House, he can not make his voice at all.
What about free speech?
If not even a president can guarantee his freedom of speech, is there any point in freedom of speech?
Don't think of it as simple.
Marx said: Man is the sum of all social relations.
Trump is Trump because he has more than 70 million hardcore supporters who voted for him, and the reason why Trump can mobilize so many supporters widely is mainly by tweeting.
Now that Trump has been silenced, you could actually say that Trump has "died socially." Although his flesh has not been destroyed, the meaning of Trump's existence has been completely different.
I really can't imagine that this actually happened in the United States, which has always been known for its "freedom of press and speech."
You know, just as Trump was elected president of the United States in 2016, Spielberg joined forces with Tom Hanks and Streep to present a film that promotes journalism and freedom of expression.
An unprecedented blockbuster combination, the director plus two starring actors, won a total of 9 Oscars for best little golden man.
Just looking at this lineup, I feel incredibly shocked.
And the subject matter they want to shoot is even more bold, bringing the famous "Pentagon leak" in 1971 to the big screen, which is the movie "The Washington Post".
The film has been hailed as a great work that best embodies the value of journalism and freedom of speech, and it is claimed that every university journalism student should take a serious look at it.
Because the story of this film tells the story of a group of media people in the United States, in order to defend the "freedom of press and speech" in their minds, they will not hesitate to directly confront the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world today.
Around whether to publish documents about the truth of the Vietnam War leaked by the Pentagon, the editors-in-chief and reporters of the Washington Post withstood the pressure to say no to then-US President Richard Nixon.
When they faced Nixon's threat, for the sake of their faith in the freedom of the press, and for the sake of not letting the highest powers do whatever they wanted, they were afraid but still fought back.
Just seeing these related reports makes people's blood boil, right?
I believe that many people who have studied journalism have heard that the supervision of the press and freedom of speech and the supervision of the media is the fourth right.
This is equivalent to the traditional "judicial, legislative and executive" powers in the United States.
The reason why media supervision, press and freedom of speech can balance this society is because freedom of speech guarantees that everyone can speak freely, and that no one can suppress the speech of others, so if he does something unseemly, he may be exposed to the world, which limits the power of those in power to do whatever they want.
The movie "The Washington Post" tells such a story.
In fact, the story of this movie is very simple. It was Nixon's promise to end the Vietnam War, and he was elected without fulfilling his promises — is it exactly the same as the subsequent election of Barack Obama and the promise of President Trump to withdraw troops from Afghanistan?
So there is a tradition for the PRESIDENT not to keep his promises.
Some people were dissatisfied with this, so the Pentagon's thousands of pages of memos about the Vietnam War were leaked, the New York Times first reported on the matter, and the US Department of Justice ruled that it was not allowed to report again, and the Washington Post stood up and insisted on continuing to report, and Nixon was furious because these leaked documents made him feel humiliated as the president, so he had to stop this from happening. He asked the Justice Department to force newspapers not to be published, citing leaks in violation of the Anti-Espionage Act.
The Washington Post is in this historical context, and it must keep its own journalistic beliefs.
As the editor-in-chief starring Hanks said —
He said that "the only way to defend the publishing rights is to publish".
He added:
"The fact that the people of this country cannot make the president alone and run the country alone, and I can't imagine that the president should equate the truth with treason, which gives me the feeling that to destroy the reputation of a ruling government or an individual is treason." This is tantamount to saying, I am the state. ”
Look, just hearing these words makes many journalism students boil with blood, right?
Of course, the editor-in-chief starring Hanks is not the last to make the decision. The landlady played by Streep is the owner of the newspaper. She was under more pressure.
Because the editor-in-chief loses his job and can find another way out, as the owner of the newspaper, if he confronts the president, the consequence may be nothing.
But this landlady was even more cattle, and on that fateful night, she encountered a lot of discouragement, and finally she decided, to publish.
Because she said:
"The media should serve the ruled, not the ruler."
What a great movie with frequent golden sentences.
At the end of the film, of course, the righteous news media people have won. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the First Amendment guaranteed a complete and complete freedom of the press, so the media won.
Okay, let's talk about that for now.
Or back to Trump.
Why is Trump banned? Because Trump used Twitter to incite the mob, Trump's supporters rushed into the Capitol and did this kind of thing, what is the next step?
Speaking of which, Twitter has played a large role in inciting riots around the world.
However, Americans could not have imagined that one day this kind of thing would also eat themselves back. A bunch of Democrats have stepped forward, such as House Speaker Perrosi, who said, "Our democracy has been shamefully attacked." “
However, what did she say about similar incidents in Hong Kong before? She said, "It's a beautiful landscape. “
This is really an American "well-known double standard".
So, understanding all this, you can understand that the so-called American freedom of speech is also a double standard. The key is to see who it is used for.
In fact, you have to understand one thing, whether it is Nixon, who was mired in the Washington Post, or Trump, who is now banned from Twitter, they are all Republicans.
Is this just a coincidence?
Let's ask again, why did Trump engage in "Twitter governance" after he took office?
Because he knew that the traditional media in the United States could not be relied upon, whether it was the new York Times, the Washington Post, or the ABC and CNN, they did not deal with him. So Trump often puts "FAKE NEWS" on his lips. So Trump wants to talk directly to voters through Twitter, not middlemen.
This is because the two parties in the United States are the main financial leaders, the Democratic Party has always been the Internet media group and Wall Street financial capital, and the Republican Party represents the interests of oil giants and military-industrial complexes. Of course, this is only the general situation, the interest groups behind the two parties, you have me, I have you.
Traditionally, though, media groups have been on the side of the Democratic Party for years.
So Republican President Nixon and Trump have been put together by the media, and has something similar happened to the Democratic side? You know, in 2016, Hillary and Trump campaigned, made a famous "mail gate", participated in the investigation and reporting of this matter, and died dozens of people before and after, and what happened in the end?
Not over yet?
So, how much is freedom of speech in the United States worth? To put it bluntly, whether you can speak freely, first of all, you have to control the media. (Trump) Without the media, without even the voice, how can we talk about freedom of speech? [Nixon] also had no media, so he had to let the other side drive free speech toward him.
From the encounter of US President Trump today, it can only be said that if you were moved by the "Washington Post" movie, infected by the plot and golden sentences in the movie, and now it is punched in the face by the United States, if you really believe that the United States has freedom of speech, you can only say that it is still a little naïve.
Text/Pippi Film Editorial Department: Mu Nuanyue
© Original 丨 Article Copyright: Ppdianying
Please do not reprint in any form without authorization