The Insider

Is everything information? Are there certain criteria that determine what is or is not critical? Who or what would set these criteria? What material or information would be considered objectionable? All these questions are really only addressing one concept, censorship. To censor is the action of rendering , altering or omitting information that is either not of importance or is threatening to a particular party or even society as a whole. If there were absolutely no regulations on the distribution of knowledge would there be chaos? How would societies or businesses function if they could not keep or secure information pertaining to their practices? Although in theory it is beautiful to imagine ideas and information being able to grow and develop freely, it seems highly impractical in realistic terms to discard the notion of censorship and how vital a role it plays in our daily lives.

The film, The Insider, discusses a multitude of perspectives regarding the distribution of knowledge. What is the general public's right to access knowledge? Is the news intended to inform its viewers of social issues or is it intended to strive for high ratings to gain support and sponsors? How do news organizations function as businesses? Lowell Bergman, a television producer for Sixty Minutes, poses this question to a fellow worker, " Are you a businessman or are you a news man?" He is implying that the motivations for the two identities conflict and it is necessary for his colleague to decide whether he wants to be influenced by prospective profits or by a true quest for knowledge. Consider the reasons why a news organization would decide to censor material that could lead to a a massive lawsuit. How long could the company really last? By threatening to release information that the tobacco industry evidently did not want to be shared with the public, the news would also be endangering their own position financially. It is essential for the news to have funds that can provide resources, stable employees, and technology. These factors illustrate why CBS was hesitant to challenge the tobacco industry publicly on their show because CBS was well aware of the personal consequences that a major lawsuit could do to their organization. Regarding the media, what is being compromised in the making of deals? When different news organizations come to terms on how to present a story, it can often be to distort the actual information. However in this film, when Bergman calls the New York Times and has his personal contacts clarify or restate the "smear campaign" on Wigand, the result is a positive one. The information is just more clearly presented to help build Wigand's credibility which his former company has attempted to undermine.

What is the commitment involved in a confidentiality agreement? Are there ever instances in which it is considered appropriate to share any confidential information? Jeffrey Wigand signed an agreement that promised to keep all his work within the company. What issues face someone who decides to challenge an agreement and release information that should be classified? Jeffrey Wigand knew that by breaking his agreement, he would put his personal safety in jeopardy. He was also making a decision that would affect the lives and well being of his family. Is it immoral not to take action in decisions that affect others without making them aware of it? Should Wigand's wife have been informed of his motives and allowed to participate in the decision making? Would having her participate in the decision affect Wigand's personal value system and would it affect his perspective of his moral dilemma? As Wigand is deciding whether to testify against his former company, Shruggs says, " You feel your whole family's future's compromised, held hostage." This line indicates that Jeffrey is well aware that his family is being affected and he is responsible for their welfare. He takes them into consideration and plans to make his decisions based on his intuition rather than intimidation from scare tactics. His intuition is that he has information that is critical for the public to know. The company he once worked for, was making their cigarettes more addictive. Would it be immoral on his part not to speak up if he had knowledge that affected the well being of the general public?

Is it immoral of the tobacco industry to keep information confidential if they are selling a product to consumers that could cause harm? The real issue is what the relationship between the producer and the consumer should be. The public allow this industry to gain profits and to become highly successful in the business world, does the industry "owe" its consumers in any way? Or is it that because the consumers buy the products that they are allowing themselves to be victimized by these industries? If it is decided that the tobacco industry is at fault for keeping this information from the public, what should be the consequences? Legal costs may not really be effective. A lawyer in the film comments on the legal representation defense that the tobacco industry has, " The unlimited checkbook. That's how Big Tobacco wins every time on everything, they spend you to death. Six hundred million a year in outside legal - Chadbourne-Park, uh, Ken Starr's firm, Kirkland & Ellis? Listen: GM and Ford, they get nailed after eleven or twelve pickups blow up, right? These clowns have never, I mean ever..." The lawyer implies that the tobacco industry has so much power that it is almost impossible to bring about a successful case against them. They spend a majority of their profits on defending themselves

...