As I watched a film directed by Jason Reitman called Thank You for Smoking in my communications media law and ethics class, it made me look at the film differently than I would have otherwise. On the surface, it seems as though it was simply a comedy about the tobacco industry, but in fact, it says a lot about persuasion, responsibility, ethics, morals, and how communication can shape the public's opinion. The movie follows a lobbyist, Nick Naylor, whose job is defending a cigarette company. He is going against the broadly known health risks. While watching the film, I kept noticing how ethics, strategic communication, morals and values, and argument tactics all play a role in the way Nick does his job effectively and efficiently. These ideas stood out the most to me and made the movie feel very relevant to what we discuss in class.
One of the largest themes in the movie is clearly ethics. Nick works for a tobacco company, which is known for selling a product that can severely harm people’s health, which is cigarettes. His job is to publicly defend the industry and argue against stricter regulations that are being attempted to be enforced by the Vermont Governor. From an ethics perspective, that creates a lot of questions within one's moral boundaries, and how far they are willing to bend their values to, as Nick Naylor said, “Pay the mortgage”. This aspect made me think much deeper about whether someone can separate their job from their responsibility to society, their family, and their community. Nick seems quite confident in what he does, but at times, it also feels like he is avoiding the bigger moral issue and pushing it to the side. In a media law and ethics context, it raises the question of whether communicators should only focus on representing their client or if they also have a responsibility to consider the public impact of what they say.
Strategic communication is also a huge part of the film. Nick rarely talks directly about whether smoking is dangerous; he reorganizes the questions and re-frames the context of the conversation. When he reframes conversations, he makes it so that the focus is on personal freedom or government control, or again, to “pay the mortgage”. This is something we talk about a lot in communications. We often talk about how framing an issue can change the way audiences interpret it, and it is clear that Nick Naylor understands that the way a message is presented can be just as important as the message itself, which makes it so that, in his words, he is “never wrong”. Whether he is appearing on television or speaking in public debates, he carefully chooses his words to shift every conversation, debate, and argument in his favor.
Another thing that the movie shows is the role that morals and values play in communication. Nick’s relationship with his son, Joey Naylor, adds an interesting layer to the storyline. Joey seems originally distant from his dad, but over time, he starts to admire his dad’s ability to argue and win debates. However, it made me wonder what kind of values Nick is actually teaching to his son, and whether he is showing his son how to think critically and communicate well, or whether he is teaching him that winning an argument is more important than being honest? That specific part of the film made the ethical questions feel more personal rather than just professional, which makes the viewer need to think much more critically, and encourages a deeper level of thinking than simply surface level.
Lastly, another thing that was illuminated to me was the argument tactic Nick uses to avoid ever being considered blatantly wrong. At one point, he explains that the key to winning an argument is not proving you are right, but proving the other person is wrong. This strategy appears throughout the film when he debates politicians or speaks to the media, as well as when he talks to his son. Rather than defending cigarettes directly, he challenges the credibility or logic of his opponent, and this was interesting to watch because it shows how persuasion can work even when someone does not have the strongest factual argument; they just have to prove the other person is wrong, which, in Nick Naylors words, makes him “automatically right”. It also reflects how communication strategies are often used in politics and public relations.
Overall, the film Thank You for Smoking relates closely to the topics we study in the communications, media law, and ethics class. The film highlights not only the ethical challenges that come with representing controversial industries but also how strategic communications and wording can be used critically and effectively in debate. It also shows how strategic communication and framing can influence the way people think about an issue and act on it. Nick’s argument tactics very clearly demonstrate how persuasion can be used to shift conversations, avoid direct responsibility, and persuade an audience. At the same time, the movie raises some major questions about personal morals, ethics, and values that people communicate through their actions. By the end of the film, it made me think more about the power communicators have and the responsibility to the public, society, and your family and friends, that comes with using that power.
No comments:
Post a Comment