REFLECTION - "Thank You for Smoking"

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, 

you're never wrong." - Nick Naylor

Thank You For Smoking

Following a viewing of Thank You for Smoking, the film uncovered the legal proceedings and moral/ethical issues of PR, marketing, and advertising. Thank You for Smoking follows the life of Nick Naylor, the chief spokesman and Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. In these occupational positions, Naylor is entrusted with upholding the company's reputation and increasing cigarette usage. In accordance with these responsibilities, he is indirectly obligated to mislead the public about the product's dangers and health concerns. His charisma and persuasiveness have allowed Naylor to navigate difficult questioning on tobacco products.

Despite the occupation's payout, I would never be able to complete Nick Naylor's role. This occupation requires an individual to disregard their moral compass and cause indirect harm to others. In particular, 1200 people die PER DAY due to the use of tobacco products, and the comforting statements of Nick Naylor. On the other hand, as an aspiring corporate lawyer, I understand the need to act with professionalism and in full accordance with my client's wishes. Therefore, I can justify his occupational responsibilities but not Naylor's outright deception. 

E-Cigarettes

During the film's publication in 2006, cigarettes were the product of choice. Today, there has been an extreme push and advertisement toward vapes, classified as e-cigarettes. Despite various companies' claims, these products have virtually the same addictive appeal and adverse effects. Vapes utilize nicotine, while cigarettes are composed of tobacco. In this scenario, my occupational response would remain the same. Morally, I wouldn't be able to advocate for a product that destroys the lives of individuals, families, and even entire communities, simply for the sake of financial gain. In my mind, these efforts are unethical and difficult to justify. 

Similarly, these struggles can be viewed in the advertisement for marijuana. Although the substance is illegal at the federal level, many states have decriminalized the substance, resulting in further promotion. Differences in regulation impact the proceedings for advertisements across state lines. With the use of social media, it is difficult to regulate the promotions that individuals in New Jersey (legalized) can view, compared to those in North Carolina (illegal). In states that criminalize marijuana possession, the advertisements such a houldn't be ----

Humphrey Bogart

Similarly, there is frequent advertising in Hollywood classics and other films that showcase cigarettes. In Thank You for Smoking, Senator Ortolan Finistirre proposes an initiative to edit old movies, removing the product's presence. This suggestion would aim to reduce society's exposure and its resulting "appeal." Although I understand Senator Finistirre's rationale, I believe that these alterations shouldn't be made. Old-time classics, including those with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, should reflect their depicted time period. On the other hand, Senators could advocate for less exposure in future films. 

Conversations between company freedoms and government regulation highlight a never-ending battle between "public health concerns" and monetary success. Despite the repercussions of cigarettes and other related products (e.g., alcohol), the federal government hasn't outlawed advertising on these products. This lack of action is strongly connected to the protections provided by the First Amendment and the concept of "corporate personhood." Corporate personhood is the claim that, because a corporation is made up of people, it is granted the same FA protections as an ordinary citizen. 

Comparisons of Cigarette Advertisements
(THEN vs. NOW) 

In addition, these cigarette companies heavily contribute to the nation's economic growth and success. By banning their advertisements, the United States would endure a major financial hit. Based on Constitutional law and our governmental oversight, I wouldn't support outlawing product advertisements. Citizens must understand the product's health effects and can choose whether to purchase, underscoring the beauty of a capitalist market. In this case, legal considerations would outweigh ethics. Morality is subjective and shouldn't be the primary principle of criminalization. 

Lastly, there was a substantial ethical violation by newspaper reporter Heather Holloway. In an effort to expose the facts behind the cigarette industry, she had sexual relations with Nick Naylor and received the information in non-interview settings. Therefore, Holloway violated her voluntary standards and didn't have the right to complete the investigation in this setting. Although the facts were significant, they shouldn't be released due to the effects of fraternization. As a result, her methods didn't justify the ends. 

Overall, Thank You for Smoking adequately connected the topics discussed on JOU: Never Stay Silent with the ----

• What about advertising for marijuana? Marijuana is still on the federal government's list of illegal drugs. If that's so, then what would be the legal status of marketing marijuana products? In states like Colorado, advertising for marijuana dispensaries is commonplace. How can that be? Should it be? What should we do about advertising that originates in a state like Colorado, where marijuana is legal under state law, that appears on Internet? It can be seen easily in states like North Carolina, where marijuana is not legal. Should those advertisers be punished in some way for violating North Carolina state law?

EOTO #1 - Terms and Concepts

 THEORIES: Confirmation Bias

INTRODUCTION:

In a world of tailored news feeds and dopamine triggers, confirmation bias highlights the reality associated with personalization. Confirmation bias is the act of seeking out, interpreting, or recalling information that coincides with an individual's pre-existing beliefs. 

THREE PRIMARY STEPS: 

The first and arguably most important step is the pursuit. This chase for information coincides with a selective search. As discussed in our course topics, current U.S. news outlets allow for a seamless execution of confirmation bias. With left-wing powerhouses, including CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and right-wing giants, Fox News, The Washington Examiner, and The Daily Wire, people are aimlessly dragged to opposing extremes. Topics of abortion, religion, poverty, and immigration continue to establish a clear line and differentiation. 

Following the pursuit, interpretation takes over. With the presented material, what will an individual make of its meaning or standpoint? Confirmation bias easily skews the connotation, cherry-picking, and distorting the content to support an individual's thoughts and preconceived notions. This results in a distorted perspective, impacting accuracy and context. 

Lastly, the recollection of knowledge, whether accurate or not, reinforces biased thinking. From creating arguments on religion to criticizing political figures, the associated reasoning is often selective and a product of confirmation bias. Based on one's current knowledge, the recalled information agrees with their initial opinion-based thinking. 

SOCIETAL IMPACT:

Confirmation bias not only affects individual perspectives but continues to infiltrate our society's functions. In particular, social media and targeted news feeds have captured the minds of people across the globe. Posts, comments, pop culture, and political ideology catered to the viewer, inducing engagement and implicit trust. 

Democratic and Republican Parties

With this impact, society must grapple with the inherent risks. The theory results in increased polarization and an avoidance of critical thinking. In a world marked by division, confirmation bias continues to widen the gap, impacting all steps of information processing. An increase in belief-based assurance discourages individuals from challenging these assumptions or conducting further research. A common example is the ongoing battle between U.S. political parties, a bitter conflict between the left and the right. Confirmation bias feeds into the divide, promoting ignorance, prejudice, and stereotypes while diminishing intellectual development. 

FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND GENERATIONAL IMPACT:

 
More prominently, confirmation bias can impact familial relationships, friendships, and the trajectory of an entire generation. In recent generations, human beings were supplied with copious amounts of knowledge and algorithms that curated information on our behalf. The resulting confidence in our viewpoints hinders judgment and allows for a routine response. As a result, individuals may refrain from compromise or the comprehension of contradictory arguments.

From a constructive standpoint, the theory increases individual certainty while harnessing a sense of accuracy in one's belief system. This confidence creates comfort and stability, regulating the human brain. 

CONQUERING CONFIRMATION BIAS:

Ultimately, confirmation bias is a theory that we must recognize and fight against. I encourage you to resist this subconscious tendency by researching an alternative perspective, following facts rather than opinion, and continuing to lead with curiosity. These efforts foster a well-rounded perspective and the development of unbiased opinions.