宋云峰

2015年在多倫多國際電影節(jié)上映的政治題材紀錄劇情片（docudrama）《真相》（Truth， dir. James Vanderbilt）系根據(jù)美國著名記者和電視新聞節(jié)目制片人瑪麗·梅普思（Mary Mapes）自傳回憶錄《真相與職責(zé)：媒體、總統(tǒng)和特權(quán)》（Truth and Duty： the Press， the President and the Privilege of Power）改編的紀實性劇情片。影片因涉及當年CBS（哥倫比亞電視公司）新聞節(jié)目《60分鐘》對小布什總統(tǒng)70年代服兵役期間享受特權(quán)的報道，引起關(guān)于所據(jù)文件真?zhèn)蔚能幦淮蟛?，再度引發(fā)各方爭議，使人深思美國媒體（出版）自由、媒體（人）揭弊職責(zé)與特權(quán)階層關(guān)系的問題。

1. 美國的言論自由與出版自由及其限度

在推翻了英國殖民統(tǒng)治并獲得獨立之后，針對個人作為弱者的自由權(quán)利可能受到國家政府的限制甚至剝奪，美國憲法第一修正案對個人的具體自由權(quán)利進行了詳細規(guī)定，主要是宗教信仰、言論出版、集會請愿等三大自由，特別以禁止國會就此立法的形式詳列憲法修正案之首。

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion， or prohibiting the free exercise thereof； or abridging（刪減）the freedom of speech， or of the press； or the right of the people peaceably to assemble， and to petition（請愿）the Government for a redress（平反）of grievances（不滿，申訴）.”

與此類似，聯(lián)合國于1948年發(fā)布的《人權(quán)宣言》（Universal Declaration of Human Rights）也對言論和表達自由權(quán)做了相應(yīng)的規(guī)定：

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression； this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference， and impart（告知）information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers（國境）.”

盡管此類自由權(quán)被英美視為當然的權(quán)利，政府也無權(quán)對這些自由進行干涉，但是所謂自由總是和限制如影隨形，正如權(quán)利與義務(wù)是同一枚硬幣的兩面。在英美國家，媒體行業(yè)對記者與編輯的新聞報道和意見表達均有職業(yè)道德的詳細行規(guī)，比如在階級、種族和性別問題上的政治正確，報道必須客觀公正并有據(jù)可依。英國以及美國各州也有涉及誹謗的法律規(guī)定。此外，英美政府有權(quán)禁止媒體獲取涉及國家利益（national interest）的政府部門相關(guān)的信息或文件，至于哪些信息涉及國家利益則由政府有關(guān)部門做出具體規(guī)定。違反這些規(guī)定，例如報道不實或者涉及誹謗抑或涉嫌披露國家機密，有關(guān)記者和媒體或者在業(yè)界名譽掃地，或者其所在媒體單位遭到起訴并付出巨額賠償。所以盡管英美的主流媒體（美國大部分電視網(wǎng)和報紙、英國所有的報紙和除BBC以外的所有電視臺）均為私有的和商業(yè)化的，記者和主播也以賺錢出名為主要目的，但是涉及揭弊（尤其是對特權(quán)階層和名人），媒體則格外小心，確保證據(jù)確鑿，否則會吃不了兜著走，自毀聲譽。

Defamation（中傷，誹謗）is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person， business， product， group， government， religion， or nation. Some common law（英美的習(xí)慣法，不成文法）jurisdictions（司法）also distinguish between spoken defamation， called slander， and defamation in other media such as printed words or images， called libel.

With respect to governmental information， any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure（披露）to the public based on classification（分類）of information as sensitive， classified（機密的）or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest.

2. CBS《60分鐘》新聞訪談與“吉利安文件爭議”（拉瑟門事件）

吉利安文件爭議（The Killian documents controversy）亦稱“拉瑟門”事件（Rathergate），涉及已故上級軍官杰里·吉利安（Jerry B. Killian）對美國總統(tǒng)小布什1972—1973年在空中國民警衛(wèi)隊（Air National Guard）服役期間表現(xiàn)的六份批評文件。在追蹤報道小布什70年代逃避服兵役（當時越南戰(zhàn)爭尚未結(jié)束，小布什利用得克薩斯州高官的關(guān)系進入空中國民警衛(wèi)隊，從而避免了被征兵去越南打仗）所引發(fā)的爭議時，CBS新聞節(jié)目制片人瑪麗·梅普思從得克薩斯陸軍國民警衛(wèi)隊（Texas Army National Guard）前軍官比爾·布凱特（Bill Burkett）手里得到其中四份文件的復(fù)印件，并在距2004年美國總統(tǒng)大選投票（小布什與克里之間角逐）不到兩個月時，由CBS《60分鐘》新聞訪談節(jié)目著名主持人丹·拉瑟（Dan Rather）將其公布，聲稱CBS聘請的專家已認定這些文件的真實性。

然而，這一論斷隨后受到了來自互聯(lián)網(wǎng)論壇和一些博客的質(zhì)疑，主要涉及文件的個別字體和版式與當年所使用的打字機不符，更有可能是在90年代之后出現(xiàn)的電腦排版（Microsoft Word）制作的。此外，該文件提供者布凱特聲稱，在傳真文件之后便已將原件焚毀。盡管CBS和拉瑟在兩周之內(nèi)仍然堅持所用文件的真實性，但其他新聞組織的進一步考證和《今日美國》（USA Today）與CBS本身對文件的分析引起了對其有效性的疑問，最終導(dǎo)致9月20日CBS的公開否定和道歉。拉瑟在節(jié)目中說：“If I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired（播出）， and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”CBS新聞部總裁安德魯·海沃德對事件也深表遺憾：“Based on what we now know， CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic， which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake， which we deeply regret.”

數(shù)月之后，CBS任命了一個獨立委員會對事件進行調(diào)查。該委員會批評了CBS最初的新聞節(jié)目制作和事件之后的“自我辯護”。據(jù)此，CBS解雇了瑪麗·梅普思，另外幾位資深新聞節(jié)目制片人被迫辭職，CBS向觀眾道歉。該委員會沒有具體認定這些文件是否系偽造，但認為節(jié)目組制片人未能證明這些文件的真實性。

3. 《真相》再度引發(fā)爭議

吉利安文件爭議事件于2015年被搬上銀幕，根據(jù)瑪麗·梅普思的回憶錄《真相與職責(zé)：媒體、總統(tǒng)與特權(quán)》改編，由著名影星羅伯特·雷德福（Robert Redford）和凱特·布蘭切特（Cate Blanchett）分別飾演丹·拉瑟和瑪麗·梅普思。

《真相》在多倫多國際電影節(jié)上受到熱烈歡迎，《好萊塢報道》（Hollywood Reporter）甚至提名該片為電影節(jié)最佳影片（好萊塢向來是討厭共和黨而傾向民主黨的）。但這部投資960萬美元的影片收益并不成功，僅收獲了540萬美元的全球票房。依據(jù)148篇影評，爛番茄網(wǎng)站給予該片61%的支持率和6.2/10的得分。Metacritic電影網(wǎng)站依據(jù)35篇影評給予該片百分制66分的較為正面的打分。Rogerebet.com影評人Brian Tallerico高度贊賞布蘭切特和雷德福的表演，但認為影片中的主人公不過是導(dǎo)演范德比爾特政治觀點的喉舌而已。

CBS的反應(yīng)則完全是負面的。影片的拍攝沒有得到CBS的同意，CBS也拒絕播出該片的宣傳廣告。CBS集團發(fā)言人批評該片對該事件事實的歪曲：“Its astounding how little truth there is in Truth. There are， in fact， too many distortions（歪曲）， evasions（回避）and baseless conspiracy theories（陰謀論）to enumerate（列舉）them all. The film tries to turn gross errors（重大錯誤）of journalism and judgment into acts of heroism and martyrdom（殉難）”。

當事人拉瑟則對《真相》和雷德福的表演贊揚有加。說到影片，拉瑟認為影片有助于人們了解電視新聞節(jié)目制作復(fù)雜的真實程序：“theres so much right in the film... I think its the best thing thats ever been up on the big screen about how television news really works， the reporting side of it： the telephone calls， wearing out the shoe leather（踏破鐵鞋）going to see people， developing sources.”他還贊揚雷德福對自己的刻畫更注重神似而不是形似：“（Redford）did not， which I appreciated very much， try to imitate. He tried to get some essence of me as a person and as a professional.”

總之，《真相》為電影觀眾上了一堂關(guān)于美國電視媒體和從業(yè)人員性質(zhì)、作用和特點的具體生動的解剖課。

4. 《真相》故事梗概

In the months before the US 2004 presidential election， Mary Mapes （producer of the primetime news program 60 Minutes Wednesday） and her crew consisting of Mike Smith， Lucy Scott， and Colonel Roger Charles are seeking evidence to verify whether or not George W. Bush received any preferential treatment（優(yōu)待）during his time in the military. Charles， knowing that the military “is good at what they do” and believes that there were no mistakes or errors despite some claims that Bushs records were lost， that the records were altered， and how Bush had difficulty meeting minimal physical aptitude testing（體能測試）. Seeking any and all leads（線索）， Mapes and her crew eventually find Bill Burkett who tells them that he has hard evidence in the form of memos（便條）and letters dictating that Bush did indeed have preferential treatment. Eventually， Mapes writes a story which Dan Rather reports upon in an edition of 60 Minutes.

After the airing， Mapes and Rather face accuracy questions on the segmen（t節(jié)目）. The core documents on which these allegations（指控）were based were immediately called into question by a variety of sources with some indicating the documents being forgeries（偽造物）first appeared on a blog， which was then investigated and amplified（詳述）by various talk radio hosts（注：美國的廣播電臺大多擁護和支持共和黨，而電視媒體則傾向民主黨）， bloggers and numerous mainstream media sources， including The Washington Post and CBS itself. They easily found that certain characteristics of the memos， such as its font（字體）and letter spacing， indicated the memos were created on a computer using Microsoft Word， and therefore could not have been typed on a typewriter in the early 1970s. Subsequently， Burkett who produced the documents admitted that he had lied about where he had obtained them.

After the scandal in which Mapes， her crew， and Rather are faced with charges of using Mapes liberal political agenda for the segment. One by one they are forced to face an internal review panel（內(nèi)部審查委員會）to determine whether or not political bias（政治傾向）was used in the report. Smith， Scott， and Charles go into it， but are eventually banned from their work and subsequently fired with Smith going on a rant（咆哮）in the office before being escorted（押送）out. Rather faces the music（接受懲罰）and decides that after the hearing（聽證會）， he will retire from broadcasting along with Mapes. While Mapes faces the board， she comes under heavy fire（遭到強烈攻擊）about her agenda for the segment. Mapes stands up for herself and presents her evidence for her side. After the hearing， Mapes is fired and Rather makes his last broadcast， citing how courage helped him and his crew get through the toughest of times.

5. 精彩臺詞

Dan Rathers Farewell Speech on “Courage”

“Weve shared a lot in the 24 years weve been meeting here each evening（拉瑟主持CBS新聞節(jié)目長達24年）. And before I say good night， this night， I need to say thank you. Thank you to the thousands of wonderful professionals at CBS News past and present with whom its been my honor to work over these years. And a deeply felt thanks to all of you who have let us into your homes night after night. It has been a privilege， and one never taken lightly. To a nation still nursing a broken heart for what happened here in 2001（指911恐怖襲擊事件）， and especially those who found themselves closest to the events of September the 11th. To our soldiers， our sailors， our airmen（飛行員）and Marines（海軍）in dangerous places. And to those who have endured the tsunami（海嘯）. And to all who have suffered natural disasters and who must find the will to rebuild. To the oppressed and to those whose lot（命運）it is to struggle in financial hardship or in failing health. To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means risking all. And to each of you， courage！ For the CBS Evening News Dan Rather reporting. Good night.”