The Guardian rounds up the best comments, questions and answers from our recent live chat on tomorrow's journalist – what tools and skills will they need to survive and thrive?
"Nothing But The Truth" (American title, also the reason for every word with a capital first letter!) is a story about a woman, journalism, principles, government, the First Amendment Rights (again, US) and how sometimes the fascination we have with journalism is maybe a tad bit too well done.
I would love to say, that it was a brilliant film, that kept me glued to the screen and constantly pondering - but it didnt. A large part did, yes. But that does not exclude the very surprising ending. Which, in a sense is unexpected but to an extent, defeats the whole purpose of the movie.
The movie - said to be fictional, 'but based on true events' - follows a reporter who reveals a CIA agent, who went to Venezuela to gather information following the assassination attempt on the president. Following the publication, a legal manhunt starts for the source. Having promised confidentiality of the source, the reporter refuses to publish the source - even in front of the grand jury et al.
The subsequent results of the trip play a part in the movie, yet the movie seems - to me, who would have liked to see some more contemplation on the journalistic issues which are ever more present even today - to concentrate too much personally on the feelings of some of the participants.
However, as some of us might become investigative journalists of some sorts (although the funding is and will greatly diminish), it is great use to watch a movie like this and possibly ponder what would you do in such situations?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073241/
PS. Impressive, that Hollywood managed to produce something surprisingly un-Hollywoodish (interesting). However, ending is a must for a Hollywood - different, none at all, could have been possibly improved?
