Throughout the film, the story of Jeffrey Wigand in a sort of "David versus Goliath" type situation moves the story line along. The title, The Insider, can be interpreted to mean that Wigand is on the inside of Brown & Williamson. Indeed he was; as the head of Research and Development, Wigand oversaw the products being distributed to the public and knew the effects of such products. Through his position he was able to discover unethical practices, and through his moral choice, he decided to expose them.
However, it is interesting to note that the beginning and the end of the movie are not focused on Wigand. For one to claim that the movie is about him would be a half-truth. Instead, the movie places much of its focus on Lowell Bergman, CBS, and its executives. In fact, one could apply the term "insider" to Lowell Bergman and the situation that he finds himself in with the Don Hewitt, Mike Wallace, and the heads of CBS. The movie portrays Bergman as being on the "inside" of CBS and fighting against its poor journalistic decisions.
Jeffrey Wigand plays an important role in the film, but in many ways his ethical decisions seem less complex than those facing the journalists in the film. Telling the truth about an obviously deadly product, ethically, is easy for the audience to contemplate. This has been the focus for many of the reviews and synopses of The Insider. But, by focusing our attention less on Wigand and more on Bergman, Wallace, and the CBS corporation and their decisions, we found a more complex story line dealing with journalistic ethics and how journalism is portrayed in the film.
________________________________
Portrayal as Crusaders of Truth
Because we follow Bergman from the beginning of the movie, from a journalistic standpoint, we must begin analyzing how he is portrayed as a journalist from the very start.
The opening scene is a shot of Lowell Bergman traveling in Lebanon to meet with the Shi'ia Islamic militant leader, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. Bergman is attempting to convince him to sit down with Mike Wallace of CBS for an interview. As Fadlallah's guards start to instruct Bergman and Wallace on how the interview will take place and what will be asked, it becomes clear that they aren't having any of it. Bergman informs Fadlallah that CBS is the most trusted news program for the U.S. and that if he wants his message to be heard, they will be conducting the interview in an unrestricted and journalistic manner. Wallace then starts the interview with the opening question, "Are you a terrorist?"
This moment in the movie is important for a couple of different reasons:
1. It establishes the reputation of CBS as a trusted source for objective news reporting from the very beginning. The following is a portion of Pacino's line from the movie script:
THE SHEIKH
Perhaps you prove journalism objectivity
and I see the questions first. Then I
decide if I grant the interview.
LOWELL
(blunt)
No. We don't do that.
(beat)
You've seen "60 Minutes" and Mike
Wallace. So you know our reputation for
integrity and objectivity. You also know
we are the highest-rated, most-respected,
TV-magazine news show in America.
In a statement of purpose for journalists by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, journalism should "provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society." They further state that amongst these roles include helping the public "identify heroes and villians."
A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
After extended examination by journalists themselves of the character of journalism at the end of the twentieth century, we offer this common understanding of what defines our work. The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society. This encompasses myriad roles--helping define community, creating common language and common knowledge, identifying a community's goals, heroes and villains, and pushing people beyond complacency. This purpose also involves other requirements, such as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to the voiceless.
In this opening scene, as well as throughout the film, Bergman and Wallace ask vital questions and dig deep into the controversial issues. Through these questions, they expose the information that the public needs to know. For example, asking, "Are you a terrorist?" gets straight to the point of identifying either a hero or a villain in society. Asking the tough questions and treating even militant leaders as if they were anybody else helps portray 60 Minutes as a truth-seeking program that can be trusted to provide objective content to society.
2. This scene demonstrates the trust and faith that Lowell Bergman had in CBS and their journalistic reputation. Throughout the movie, the term "integrity" is used as an ultimate virtue that all of the characters strive to retain. Questioning a journalist's integrity is is portrayed to be accusing him or her of murder. Ironically, the very integrity that Bergman defends, is tarnished by the company that is portrayed as betraying him in the movie.
_______________________________________
Portrayal as a Voice to the Voiceless
The Society of Professional Journalists states as part of their "code of ethics" that the first and foremost goals of journalists is to "seek truth and report it." Bergman is portrayed as doing exactly that.
The truth isn't always out in the open. It isn't surrounded by people or being given freely to the media.
Sometimes the truth is bound by a confidentiality agreement. Sometimes the truth is under a stranglehold of a multi-billion dollar company. Sometimes the truth has to do what's best for its family. Jeffrey Wigand had obstacles put up in front of him for exposing the truth. Bergman faced these issues by convincing Wigand bit by bit to share his story through a combination of getting Wigand to trust him and reminding Wigand what it means to be a man of science and honesty.
Furthermore, the Society of Professional Journalists states as part of seeking and reporting truth that one of the goals of journalists should be to give a voice to the voiceless, especially when they have a newsworthy story. Jeffrey Wigand had quite a newsworthy story.
Wigand always described himself as a "man of science." As a research and development executive, he was immersed in the science of tobacco, but was prevented from leaking it. Although the movie chooses not to focus on Wigand's discoveries while working for the company, he has shared with multiple sources the discoveries and cover-ups he encountered while working for Brown & Williamson.
- After a scientists' conference in which a 15-page summary of side effects and reports were discussed, Wigand was asked to sign-off on a 3-page summary by Raymond Pritchard, the CEO at that time.
- Wigand felt as though his plans for a safer cigarette were being ignored by the president, Thomas Sandefur. He expressed his concerns to the Pritchard who told him, "I don't want to hear any more discussion about a safer cigarette...if we pursue a safer cigarette, it would put us at extreme exposure with every other project."
- He then focused his studies even more on the dangers of additives once burned. He discovered that glycerol, which keeps cigarettes moist, becomes the toxic compound acrolein upon burning. Soon after this discovery, Sandefur, one of the men who had silenced him all along, was promoted to CEO of Brown & Williamson.
- Wigand read a report in 1992 about the carcinogenic properties of coumarin, a compound with a composition similar to rat poison. The company claimed it had removed coumarin from its products, but it was still being added to their product, Sir Walter Raleigh. Wigand spoke out against the use of the additive, saying that he couldn't continue in good conscience. When he confronted Sandefur about removing the additive, he protested on the grounds that it would impact sales negatively. Wigand was fired shortly afterward.
The movie gives a real sense of Bergman defending Wigand and fighting for his voice to be heard. In one seen they tell each other that the world needs more men like them. This friendship is not a fabrication. Bergman states that he was there by Jeffrey's side as his family unit suffered. This dynamic relationship between a man with a story and a man who fights to tell it is portrayed in interviews with the men, as well as in the movie.
______________________________________________
Portrayal of Corporate Influence
It took months for Jeffrey Wigand to feel comfortable enough to have his story told. In the movie, it comes after death threats to his family; he becomes frustrated with the paranoia his family endures, while his antagonists sleep soundly every night.
His decision to go public and agree to the interview with Mike Wallace was a great victory for Lowell Bergman, who had worked steadily to find a way in which Wigand would be able to come forward without putting his head under the figurative guillotine of Brown & Williamson. Unfortunately, Bergman hit a wall when it was discussed with him and those involved with the production of 60 Minutes that the company was putting itself in danger with Brown & Williamson if they chose to air the Wigand interview. The term they used to describe their danger was "tortious interference."
According to the movie, Bergman ends up as the lone proponent of airing the unedited interview. Instead, it is agreed upon to air an edited version with Mike Wallace explaining why they couldn't disclose the names of the tobacco company or the scientist blowing the whistle on them.
In the movie, Bergman comes across documents discussing a merger between CBS and the Westinghouse Corporation. In these files it listed the names of those who would benefit from the merger, including Eric Kluster and Helen Caperelli (Eric Ober and Ellen Kaden, respectively, are their actual names). If CBS did air the actual interview and got caught up in an expensive lawsuit with Brown & Williamson, the merger could have gone down the drain.
But there were further complications in the form of Andrew Tisch. Andrew Tisch, son of CBS chairman Laurence Tisch, was the chairman of Lorillard, one of the "Seven Dwarves" of big tobacco. He was present April 14th, 1994 as part of the Waxman trials where he testified that he believed nicotine was not addictive before congress.
"In court, there's a difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence. There is no hard evidence that the money involved in the merger, in some way or another, made people come up with the idea of tortious interference as a way to stop this story. On the other hand, there is a whole series of circumstances which, I think (a) should have been reported by 60 Minutes in that November [12th of 1995] broadcast, which is, How much money were people going to make? I mean, in the SEC filing the actual chapter is called "Persons who will profit from this merger" and it lists Kaden and Ober. Now we don't know what other people had--if they weren't corporate officers of some kind, then they don't have to report it. So Hewitt's an employee, for instance, so you don't have to report what he might make. But, it was clearly a lot of money at stake at this time."
The difference between what the movie portrays and what we know for certain is admittedly small. The overall issue portrayed through these scenes is what is important; that is, the corporate influence on journalism. How many stories aren't run because news industry is afraid of what other companies (such as big tobacco) might say or do? The problem is, the truth might not be fully reported. If we can't trust the media to free themselves from the corporate hand, then in the process of digesting their content, we are subject to their version of the truth. We would have never known that Brown & Williamson was deliberately adding carcinogens to its products, or that they fired people such as Wigand who fight for the safety of consumers.
Through this fear, corporations force news companies to "self-censor" their content for anything that may put them in the path of rich, threatening corporations. This form of gate keeping is another way of keeping truth from society. The following was taken from Bergman's interview with Frontline:
You say "self-censorhip" and not regular old censorship.
I'm not sure that it's new. It's always difficult with any publication or broadcaster to take on a subject or an institution that is as big as you are, or bigger, that has some commercial link, especially, to your organization. It's always difficult. . . What has been adjudicated and established in the wake of Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement is the ability of the press to basically write or broadcast almost anything about the government. There's very few restrictions in that way. It's not true when we're talking about private power, especially major Fortune 500 corporations, or people worth more than, say, a billion dollars.
What a thing to say. You can take down the President of the United States--
What a thing to say. You can take down the President of the United States--
But don't screw with General Electric.
At one point, Bergman says he was ordered by CBS not to continue contact with Wigand, so that Brown & Williamson would have no evidence as to CBS ever coming in contact with Wigand.
Fortunately, the 60 Minutes interview was eventually aired, but this only followed the Wall Street Journal publishing their story about Jeffrey Wigand. In the movie, the Wall Street Journal got their information from Bergman, who told them to check into his leads that would show that Brown &Williamsons's smear campaign claims were based on inaccuracies and scant evidence, leading us into the next journalistic issue.
____________________________________
The "Dark Side" of Journalism
The "Dark Side" of Journalism
Portions of The Insider portray what could be thought of as the "dark side" of journalism. Following the release of Jeffrey Wigand's interview, his former employer, Brown & Williamson, hired a PR firm to uncover everything they possibly could to discredit Wigand. Everything he'd ever done wrong and some things he'd hadn't were published in a 500-page dossier entitled, "The Misconduct of Jeffrey S. Wigand Available in the Public Record." His entire past was manipulated to paint him as an unethical and untrustworthy person whose words couldn't be trusted. Any future claims he made against the tobacco industry would be ignored because of his lack of credibility. In all, they tried to paint him as a "master of deceit."
They hired journalists to search his doctoral dissertation for signs of plagiarism, to search his past resumes and drivers license applications, investigate complaints he'd made about products he'd purchased and his possible involvement in flooding the office of a former employer. They even investigated his previous marriage and divorce. They accused him of everything from spousal abuse to shoplifting to lying about being a member of the Olympic judo team.
It eventually ended in a PR meltdown for Brown & Williamson as the Wall Street Journal accepted the dossier, but proceeded to find the flaws and lies that it contained. The charges of shoplifting were dropped; he only claimed that he had "practiced" with the Olympic judo team. Eventually Wigand even countersued B&W for a breach of privacy and falsification of records. This important aspect of the film portrays the negative uses and deceptive ways that information can be framed, in this case to ruin someone's reputation. Reputation is one of the main elements that the characters in the film prize more than almost anything. Fortunately for Mr. Wigand, The Wall Street Journal and others saw the smear campaign for what it really was and published articles in response.
From the Wall Street Journal, Feb 1st, 1996:
A close look at the file, and independent research by this newspaper into its key claims, indicates that many of the serious allegations against Mr. Wigand are backed by scant or contradictory evidence. Some of the charges -- including that he pleaded guilty to shoplifting -- are demonstrably untrue.
Brown &Williamson's tactics aren't unheard of in high-stakes litigation, but the vivid details seldom come to light. And, whatever they turn out to prove about Mr. Wigand, they provide sometimes-chilling insight into how much a company can find out about a former employee -- and the lengths it may go to discredit a critic.
Mr. Scruggs calls Brown &Williamson's overall effort a "smear campaign" aimed at "punishing a whistle-blower and a defector." He adds: "If you subjected any citizen of the United States to this sort of scrutiny, they would probably fare far worse than Jeff Wigand has."
Brown & Williamson could have a tough time getting many of its findings -- particularly those involving personal matters -- admitted as evidence in a trial. Normally, evidence of past falsehoods is tightly restricted unless directly relevant to the subject of the testimony -- in this case, alleged wrongdoing in the tobacco industry.
__________________________________________________
Concluding Remarks
As much as The Insider is an inspiring tale of a man fighting against a tobacco giant, it is also a complex story of journalistic issues and decisions. From the beginning of the movie, we see that the purpose was to establish the reputation of CBS, Lowell Bergman and Mike Wallace through their truth-seeking and hard-fought journalistic determinism.
The decisions by Bergman in the movie through working with Jeffrey Wigand portrayed him as a journalist who was seeking to give someone without a voice the opportunity to share his story, one of the duties of an ethical journalist.
The movie also identified the issue of corporate influence upon news coverage. In some cases, the news is gate-kept by large corporations who are able to influence the news companies with fear of litigation or financial pressures. Concerns over revenue and ratings can also keep news organizations from reporting controversial information, regardless of how valuable it is.
Finally, the movie portrayed some aspects of journalism in a negative sense through misleading framing of information by independent journalists hired by Brown & Williamson to discredit Jeffrey Wigand. The role of credibility in journalism is also emphasized through this smear campaign. For the Wall Street Journal to publish the 500-page dossier without review would be completely foolish, and would give the public a sense of distrust when the truth was eventually revealed.
Overall, the film has a diverse take on journalistic issues. It may portray Bergman, the main journalist, as too much of a hero or having too much of an influence over the content being broadcast to the public, but it covered the main ideas in a truthful sense. Furthermore, it identified issues that journalism faces in the corporate world and leaves the viewer with both sides of the spectrum to analyze.
In our own personal interview with Lowell Bergman, we asked how he felt about the state of ethical journalism. He said, "In general it sucks. But that's nothing new."
_________________________________________
Sources used:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/smoke/bergman.html
http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1996/05/wigand199605
http://www.jeffreywigand.com/wallstreetjournal.php
http://spj.org/ethicscode.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment