「抗洪吃盒飯」影片引發爭議：是真實救援，還是刻意營造的宣傳畫面？

中國《人民日報》視頻號近日發布的一段抗洪短片，在網路上引發大量討論。影片拍攝於廣西崇左抗洪搶險現場，畫面中兩名身穿已經濕透的體能服、浸泡在及腰洪水中的民兵隊員，直接在洪水中捧著盒飯快速用餐。整段影片只有短短數十秒，原本想呈現的是抗洪人員在艱苦環境下仍堅守一線、甚至只能利用短暫時間吃飯的畫面，但影片曝光後，網路上的反應卻出現明顯兩極化，不少民眾非但沒有被感動，反而質疑這種拍攝方式是否帶有過度宣傳甚至「擺拍」的成分。

據相關報導，影片中的兩名民兵為南寧市良慶區那陳鎮民兵應急排成員雷鑒橙與雷貴期，兩人同時也是基層村幹部及民兵黨員。此前兩人曾參與橫州抗洪搶險，此次在得知崇左扶綏需要支援後，又主動請纓，於8月25日中午隨隊前往當地參加抗洪工作。抵達扶綏後，兩人沒有進行長時間休整，而是立即跟隨隊伍前往受災地點進行堤壩加固，一直工作到深夜。8月26日，扶綏縣新寧鎮茶柳村一段長約2.6公里的防洪堤出現多處滲漏，險情持續增加，兩人隨隊趕赴現場處置。

按照官方描述，雷鑒橙與雷貴期自小在水庫附近長大，熟悉水性，而且多年在基層工作，因此主動承擔較為危險的水下封堵任務，進入洪水中排查堤壩隱患並封堵滲水點。從抗洪搶險工作的角度來看，這類任務本身確實具有一定危險性，救援人員長時間浸泡在洪水中作業，也需要承受體力與環境上的雙重壓力。

然而，真正引發爭議的並不是兩名民兵是否參與抗洪，而是官方選擇呈現的方式。影片刻意捕捉兩人在混濁洪水中吃盒飯的畫面，並以極短、極具視覺衝擊力的方式傳播，很容易讓觀眾產生強烈情緒反應。支持者認為，這正好反映出一線抗洪人員連吃飯都沒有完整時間，值得肯定；但質疑者則認為，抗洪現場最重要的是救援與安全，而不是在洪水中「拍一段吃飯影片」，因此懷疑影片是否存在刻意安排鏡頭、強化英雄敘事的宣傳目的。

尤其在如今社交媒體高度發達的環境下，官方宣傳如果過度依賴「苦難場景＋英雄人物＋情緒化剪輯」，反而可能產生反效果。過去一些災害報導中，觀眾已經多次看到類似的宣傳模式，因此部分網民對這種高度戲劇化的畫面產生審美疲勞，甚至出現「作假作到底」之類的批評。這並不代表所有參與救災的人員都是虛假的，更不能僅憑一段影片就認定現場行動是「擺拍」，但它確實反映出一個問題：當宣傳鏡頭太過強調「感動」，觀眾反而會開始追問，眼前看到的究竟是救援工作的自然紀錄，還是經過設計的宣傳場景？

事實上，真正值得肯定的抗洪救援，不需要依靠刻意營造的英雄鏡頭來證明。救援人員深入危險區域、加固堤壩、轉移受困群眾、搶救財物，這些實際工作本身就足以說明他們付出的努力。如果官方能夠更多呈現災情本身、救援進度、受災群眾需求以及救援人員實際完成的工作，反而更容易取得公眾信任。相反，如果把鏡頭集中在「泡在洪水裡吃盒飯」這種極具戲劇效果的場景，卻沒有充分交代當時的安全條件與工作背景，就容易讓觀眾把注意力從抗洪本身轉移到「是不是在演」上。

因此，這場爭議真正值得討論的，並不是兩名民兵究竟辛不辛苦，而是災害報導應該如何在真實紀錄與宣傳表達之間取得平衡。兩名民兵是否真正投入抗洪工作，可以透過完整的救援紀錄、現場影像與官方資料加以確認；而一段經過選擇與剪輯的短視頻，則不應該被直接當成全部真相。

對抗洪一線人員而言，真正重要的是把堤壩守住、把受困群眾救出來，而不是如何在鏡頭前吃完一盒飯。當公眾開始對宣傳畫面產生懷疑時，最有效的回應也不是製造更多煽情鏡頭，而是提供更加完整、透明、可驗證的資訊。真正的英雄，不需要靠鏡頭把自己拍成英雄；真正的救援，也不需要靠一段刻意煽情的影片才能證明。

Controversy Over “Eating Boxed Meals in Floodwaters” Video: Genuine Rescue Effort or Carefully Staged Propaganda?

A short flood-rescue video published by the People’s Daily video account in China has triggered widespread discussion online. Filmed at a flood-control operation in Chongzuo, Guangxi, the footage shows two militia members standing waist-deep in muddy floodwater, their physical-training uniforms completely soaked, while they quickly eat boxed meals in the middle of the flooded area. The clip lasts only a few dozen seconds, but its highly emotional imagery immediately attracted enormous attention. While some viewers praised the two men for continuing their duties under difficult conditions and having to eat wherever they could, others reacted very differently, questioning whether the scene was deliberately arranged to create an emotional propaganda image.

According to reports, the two men shown in the video are Lei Jiancheng and Lei Guiqi, members of the militia emergency unit in Nacheng Town, Liangqing District, Nanning. Both are reportedly grassroots village officials as well as militia members and Communist Party members. They had previously participated in flood-control operations in Hengzhou. After learning that additional assistance was needed in Chongzuo’s Fusui County, they volunteered again and traveled there with their team around noon on August 25. After arriving, they reportedly did not take an extended rest and instead immediately joined flood-control operations, reinforcing embankments and continuing their work until late at night.

On August 26, a roughly 2.6-kilometer section of flood-control embankment near Chaliu Village in Xinning Town, Fusui County, reportedly developed multiple seepage points, creating an increasingly serious flood-control situation. Lei Jiancheng and Lei Guiqi were sent to the site with their team. According to the official account, both men grew up near a reservoir and had extensive experience working in grassroots communities. Because they were strong swimmers and familiar with the local environment, they volunteered for underwater operations to locate weaknesses in the embankment and seal leaking sections. Their work required them to enter the floodwater and inspect the embankment under dangerous conditions.

The controversy, however, is not primarily about whether the two men participated in flood-control work. Instead, it concerns the way the incident was presented to the public. The video specifically focuses on the dramatic image of the two men eating boxed meals while standing in muddy floodwater. The combination of extreme conditions, soaked uniforms and hurried eating creates a highly emotional visual narrative. Supporters argue that the footage demonstrates how frontline rescue workers have so little time to rest that they must eat in the middle of their work. Critics, however, question why such a scene needed to be filmed and prominently promoted in the first place, suggesting that the footage may have been intended to reinforce a heroic narrative.

In the era of short-form social media videos, highly emotional disaster footage can sometimes produce the opposite of its intended effect. When audiences repeatedly encounter the same formula—difficult conditions, exhausted workers, heroic imagery and emotional editing—some viewers inevitably become skeptical. Comments accusing the video of being “staged” or saying that the authorities are “taking propaganda to the extreme” reflect this growing distrust. That does not, by itself, prove that the rescue operation was fabricated or that the two militia members were not genuinely working. A short video alone is simply insufficient evidence to make such a conclusion.

What the controversy ultimately exposes is the difficult balance between documenting genuine disaster-response efforts and turning those efforts into emotionally charged propaganda. The dangerous work performed by rescue personnel can certainly deserve recognition. But when the camera deliberately emphasizes the most dramatic possible moment, viewers may begin focusing less on the actual rescue operation and more on whether the scene was arranged for the camera.

In reality, effective flood rescue does not require carefully constructed heroic images to demonstrate its value. Reinforcing damaged embankments, evacuating residents, protecting communities and responding to dangerous flood conditions are already meaningful accomplishments. Providing detailed information about the actual disaster, rescue operations, risks faced by workers and assistance provided to residents would arguably do more to build public trust than a highly emotional thirty-second clip.

The lesson is therefore not that the two militia members should not be praised. Their work may well have been difficult and dangerous. The bigger question is how official institutions choose to communicate such events. When a disaster video becomes so focused on creating an emotional response that viewers begin debating whether it was staged, the communication strategy itself becomes part of the story.

The most convincing proof of courage is not someone eating a boxed meal while standing in floodwater for the camera. It is what the person actually accomplishes when the cameras are gone. Real rescue work does not need to be turned into a dramatic performance to have value, and genuine heroes do not need carefully constructed images to prove that they are heroes.