Conclusion

Above pictured, from left to right: Jeffrey Wigand, Russell Crowe, Al Pacino and Lowell Bergman.

The Society of Professional Journalists lays out a Code of Ethics that journalists should follow. It is important to remember that the Code of Ethics is not a legal document and cannot be enforced, but entails guidelines and recommendations for those in the professional field.

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."

In The Insider, Bergman worked very hard to protect his source, though he wasn't always successful in protecting him from harm. Bergman was upset at multiple times because he felt he was being stonewalled by CBS corporate. While Bergman did not eliminate harm, we feel he did his best to minimize it by never revealing or "selling out" Jefferey Wigand.

From our research, we have found that the movie stuck very close to the real life situation, though with many instances of dramatization. Michael Mann never meant for the film to be a documentary; it is a drama produced in a Hollywood world. But as a whole, we believe that it sends the right message. It doesn't over-fictionalize any events to the point that audience would develop outright false perceptions. Not everyone involved was accepting of their portrayal in the movie, but sometimes the way others see us and our decisions are not the same as our own. The movie does not rewrite the history of the events surround Wigand, CBS or Brown & Williamson. Even though it is dramatized, it is done with reasonable moderation, and still expresses important messages to viewers. Below are the personal conclusions of each group member:

Seth: I generally think that movie audiences are intelligent enough to understand that characters in film that are based on real-life people are not 100% accurate.  I did not watch this movie thinking, "Wow, that Mike Wallace guy is a flake! And Don Hewitt is a corporate suck up, and Eric Kluster is a greedy money mongerer!"  I don't think Michael Mann intended this to be just about the people; if so, then it was just a nice case study.  I think he wanted us to consider most the choices they made.  We may vary widely in personality from Bergman and Wigand, but we are all faced with choices as real as those in the movie:  Do I tell the truth at any cost, even if it may damage my reputation and family?  What is the line between guiding someone to do the right thing and manipulating them into doing something they don't want to do?  Am I willing to give up money for a cause I deem greater than money?  Do words really have the power to change public opinion?  Though I don't have answers to all these questions, the fact that I'm asking them of myself makes me think this movie has value.

Favorite line:

                         MIKE WALLACE
               Oh, how fortunate I am to have Lowell
               Bergman's moral tutelage to point me down
               the shining path.  To show me the way.

                         LOWELL
               Oh, please, Mike...

                         MIKE WALLACE
                   (beat)
               Give me a break!

                         LOWELL
               No, you give me a break!  I never left a
               source hung out to dry, ever.  Abandoned.
               Not 'til right now!  When I came
               on this job, I came with my word intact.
               I'm gonna leave with my word intact.
               F**k the rules of the game!  Hell, you're
               supposed to know me, Mike.  What the hell
               did you expect?  You expect me to lie
               down?  Back off?  What, get over it?

Alex: I think the movie The Insider was a necessary movie to show audiences the power that big corporations have over the media and their consumers.  The movie also gives out the message of true journalism ethics and the sacrifices needed to get the truth out to the public.  I believe the basis of The Insider was more importantly about Bergman and the ethics of journalism than it was about Wigand exploiting big tobacco. 

Stefani: 

"'Tortious interference?' That sounds like a disease caught by a radio." 

-Lowell Bergman, The Insider

First of all, the movie The Insider was fascinating. It really introduced me to the actuality of corporate scandals, shady practices and the unethical side of journalism, as well as to why people once thought smoking wasn't bad for you. In my classes, I've been lectured on sticking to the ethical side of journalism, had quizzes on the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. This movie was beneficial in seeing the both the acting on that code and the not acting on that code.  A part in the movie that struck me is when Bergman ask if what Wigand is saying is true, the answer is yes, yet still CBS still chooses not to air the interview. Another part of the movie that I found interesting was how it was a producer, rather than the CEO, president, or even someone higher up that was pushing for the ethical side of reporting the story. I feel like if anything, it should be pressure from above (no pun intended) that leads people to do what's right. The Insider shows the potential mess that can result when ethical journalism isn't enforced. It led me to understand a lot better the importance of ethical standing.  The Insider for the most part is portrayed ethically, though I can see there is a lot of dramatization.

Chase:

"There are times when I wish I hadn't done it. There are times when I feel compelled to do it. If you ask me would I do it again, do I think it's worth it? Yeah, I think it's worth it."

-Jeffrey S. Wigand

For one to walk away from watching The Insider with any sort of summarized plot is almost doing the film a sort of injustice. The plot is focused on a string of real events that involve real people with very real opinions. The story is not just about a whistle blower of a big tobacco company, but is about so much more. Its about the duty that scientists have to publish and make public to society. It is also about journalists duty to expose the truth, even when the the deck is stacked against them. It give psychological insight into the the pressure of threat and fear by those that we assume control us, but it also shows how important it is for us to never silence our voices when we have something of importance to say. It portrays the dynamics of family under the stress of media attention and journalistic interference. It portrays the devastating effects of smear campaigns, but also how ethical journalism can win out. It shows corporate greed, and fear of fiscal damage that even the largest and most aggressive of mass media companies face.
The film is not a perfect historical account. It dramatizes events, leaves out details, compresses time, and adds dialogue that never occurred. To some individuals, it can seem like the movie paints a negative image of CBS or of its employees. Certainly B&W are unhappy with the portrayal of their company and their standards as well. There are complaints to be made from a variety of parties.
The film is a product of Hollywood, but it is a darn good one. Overall, we have discussed how film retells the story of our time to generations to come, and constructs realities about events. The Insider doesn't fiddle enough with the actual events to construct a false reality. The characters that may have been portrayed negatively were not done so completely. One of the best elements of the film is its portrayal of both the light and dark in its characters. The events may have been compressed time wise, but since when have we ever fully comprehended the scale of history? In history classes we list wars that occurred throughout time, one after another. Even from a personal journal, we interpret events as happening one after another, and don't take the time to contemplate what happened between them. The important part of each of these is that we learn the context and stories about these past events, and learn how to accurately retell them to others. In the case of these particular events, The Insider does that.

Manda: I'm glad that our group selected this movie. It really made me think about the SPJ code of ethics, and the complications that journalists sometimes face when trying to uncover the "big" stories. Although Bergman's character may have been over dramatized, I think the stress he experienced while trying to spread Wigand's story was completely real. In Professor LaPlante's Intro to News Writing class, we've discussed situations like this. How far am I willing to go to protect my source? What if they agree to give me information that could hurt them? Should I share it? Another issue this brings to questions is recognizing big business' control over the media. We need to be careful what messages we're allowing into our heads, and we need to be aware of bias that may be present.  I felt that the events shown in the movie were pretty historically accurate. Of course dramatic effects had to be added - it's a movie. Overall, I think it was put together very well, and I have enjoyed analyzing it for this project.