AliprandoJoannaAnnotation10

The Insider 1. Title, director and release year? The Insider, Michael Mann, 1999 The film presents the both the absolute power of mega-corporations as well as the twisted web of influences and incentives dictating the media. First, we understand the legal prowess and monetary threatening power the big cigarette company holds over it's employees. Through the story of former Brown and Williamson tobacco company executive we understand the hardships and severe consequences of even questioning the actions of one's company. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand questioned public safety and health in an ammonia chemical formula to impact the boost of nicotine delivered to the smoker. Once he Dr. Wigand stepped down from the project due to his concern for public health he was quickly fired for "poor communication skills." His dismissal with the company was followed with a debriefing session by corporate officials reminding him of the confidentiality agreement with B&W preventing him to speak of his work at the company. Violation of his agreement was threatened with a lifetime of monetary lawsuits, yet we discover the company will threaten him with much more than that, jeopardizing his and his family's safety. Along with that story is the complicated story of how, what, when and why certain stories are covered by the media. 60 minutes producer, Lowell Bergman takes on Jeffrey's story with the desire for true investigative reporting. Yet his intentions are interfered with the corporate incentives of CBS and the threat of CBS sued and overtaken by B&W for reporting the news. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? A major sustainability problem the film draws out is the interconnectivity and interdependence of corporate //organizations//. CBS News is not news, it is an entertainment branch owned by CBS Corporate. CBS News airs stories that create a positive impact on CBS Corporate's bottom line. When news is presented that may be a negative impact to the bottom line, naturally it is not aired. Bergman expresses this frustration when he says " Is it newsworthy? YES Will we air it? OF COURSE NOT."
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

We see the same connectivity through corporate and //government// co-existence of the FBI agents who came to investigate Jeffrey's home. After Jeffery was worried someone was following him and spying around his household he called the police. Yet the FBI came to his door accusing him of planting the threats in his own mailbox and questioning his emotional stability. They even stole his laptop, stealing all his private information. A man searching for peace and safety is interrogated by the FBI rather than offered comfort or any form of protection. We soon discover the FBI agents were ex-supervisors and corporate security for B&W.

Technological or scientific issues are present in the film as well. Dr. Wigand mentioned in his first interview with 60 minutes he always considered himself a man of science. A man of science, committed to scientific data and work to help the general good of the public. Yet working for B&W and signing confidentiality agreements, has compromised those goals, viewing Dr. Wigand as intellectual commodity required to use his scientific knowledge for the good of the company. Once the two contradicted one another Dr. Wigand was challenged does he keep his agreement, his pay to support his family, his way of life OR does he report the science to protect the people? 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? In Dr. Wigand's original interview with 60 minutes he explains his newest project at B&W-- the project that upon expressing concern of ethical considerations, resulted in his release from the company. Dr. Wigand was to lead a project researching an ammonia chemical that when added to the cigarette, acted as a nicotine enhancer. Dr. Wigand had researched documents proving this ammonia chemical as a carcinogen and with that information decided he could no longer work for B&W. However when presenting this information to execs at B&W they responded that B&W is in the nicotine delivery business, where the cigarette acts as a delivery device of nicotine, so these impact boosters (as they call them) are just another aspect to their business. Immediately this scene is followed by the 7 dwarfs (7 big tobacco company CEOs) saying in a court of law they do not believe nicotine is addictive. I was compelled to watch how the twisting of words and articulation of issues allow companies to lie to consumers and to do so legally. Big tobacco companies and other corporations for that matter, have their own set of company jargon where they tell themselves they don't sell people cigarettes but rather they are in the business of nicotine delivery, which does not cause cancer it just happens to be highly addictive (which they claim not to believe).

Another example of corporate jargon was during a CBS News and CBS Corporate board meeting. During the meeting, a legal representative from corporate explained the legal concerns of "tortuous interference" Dr. Wigands 60 minute interview would certainly violate. Tortuous interference says a third party member involved in violating a contract (Wigands confidentiality notice), that third party may be sued. She explained to save the company from lawsuits that may allow B&W to take over CBS they cannot air Wigands entirely interview, specifically leaving out the "nicotine delivery business part." Bergman was furious that Wigands risked and destroyed his own life so that he may be heard on television, so that his story is not forgotten, yet CBS News is unwilling to hold their end of the deal up by airing news. Bergman yells "But he's telling the truth, we have to air it!" After which the lawyer responds the greater the truth the greater the risk. In other words a news company is not concerned about airing news that is truthful but rather, they are more concerned with airing news that IS true, and IS newsworthy and of concern to their views, yet it also IS damaging to a multi billion dollar company severely threatening the existence of CBS. After this scene Bergman questions what investigative journalism really is, and how it can benefit society if lawyers decide what to air and what news is. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? In general, the movie was really long. Scenes in the beginning I was pretty unsure about how they actually related to the storyline. Only to find out later, those scenes didn't really contribute much at all. I think the greatest weakness of the film was the excessive length. Other than that the film did a nice job captivating the audience one you understand the story. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? Additionally, I would have liked to understand how Wigand's speaking out affected B&W and other tobacco companies. ** The end of the film tells us B&W was subject to a multi million dollar settlement yet I would like to understand how this affect their business. **In general, understanding the outcome on a more social level rather than just seeing at the end of the film how much money B&W had to pay. How did this particular type of activism affect society? Was this the first corporate outcry? Did Wigand's action inspire others to speak out against unmoral or unethical activities in their companies? If so, were they more successful than Wigand, or did they experience the same threats and difficulty he faced? 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? Since the film is a major motion picture it is appropriate and entertaining for any group of viewers really. I actually really enjoyed how it used the back and forth of corporate interests to create a suspense movie. It really is a thriller to understand the twists and turns of corporate activity. I think the film does instill that in viewers regardless of whether they viewed this film from a sustainability standpoint or not. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? Through Dr. Wigand's and Bergman's actions I would say the biggest takeaway or suggestion of the film is to stand by your word. Bergman's interference in Wigand's life has more or less cost Wigand his wife and family and sense of sanity or control of his life. Yet, Wigand agreed to interview on the concept that him speaking will get the story out there, it will inform the public and help change the corruption of the industry. However once CBS confronted Bergmen about cutting out Wigands interview from the segment, Bergmen fought for the interview in the name of investigative journalism but more because he understood how this was a promise he made to Wigand,that if nothing else he owes this too him. Bergman is definitely the antagonist of the story with his perseverance and lack of concern to save his own skin is inspiring. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? It's hard to say what additional information should have been added since the movie does aim to entertain and i think a big part of it's success as an educational piece is that it is entertaining. That being said, I would have liked a little more grand-scale look at societal reactions to the release of this information. (see question 6). **