The Insider Assignment 2

1. Very good analysis of the conflicted Mike Wallace. Apparently the real journalist hated the film, but it is revealing how the complex strands of conflict shaped his actions. Writing was excellent, except for the odd glitches in the first paragraph. 

2 and 3 both presented a solid analysis.

4. Superior analysis of the rhetoric used in the board meeting. Caparelli’s use of “a monotone and sophisticated tone’. is delightfully on target. I might argue that Bergman is also using pathos in his appeal, but you make your case very well. Great job!

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdUI_0mIkec&t=430s

In this country, capitalism is a driving force when trying to look for a medium in which to share the truth. Companies that prioritize making a profit run all mainstream platforms. The influence the companies put on the audience is something that reflects bias and manipulation. The host, Mike Wallace, can be seen to have an easily manipulated sense of what journalists should prioritize. When the legal concept emerged, known as Tortious interference, if two parties have an agreement, such as a confidentiality agreement, and one of those parties is instigated by a third party to break that agreement, the party can be sued by the other party for any damages. “The greater the truth, the greater the damage,” this exemplifies, that standards are arbitrary. The climate shapes Wallace’s values, and concealment depends on what is the majority rule. At 2:01:49 Wallace scolds the lawyers prioritizing his own words, which is quite the contrary position he took when advocating for the alternate version. Good catch. Corporate lawyers maintain the interest of companies. Wallace knew that pushing for the uncut episode would lead to retaliation on his job. They witnessed first-hand through Wigand, the power they hold.

CBS News wants to maintain their standards all while making sure that they are not at risk of getting sued for the truths they discovered. It was not in their best interest to tell the secrets of a fortune 500 company. The repercussions would be just too (is something missing here?) Shares were in a critical position from CBS corporate to earn more money; this is a hidden motivator and drives the decisions of everyone involved. Yes, or at least those who would profit. This episode became more than just money. These people got involved in something that tested their values. Theses e decisions would impact families and future endeavors. At 2:22:22 you finally see the motivating drive for Wallace’s decisions on what to air. They are both journalists, just at different times in their life. Wallace brings emphasis to a personal argument by appealing to Lowell’s emotions. This confession brought about sympathy within the audience and Lowell, with the intent of being understood.  Excellent.

Throughout Mann’s film, the journalists have to face several obstacles that would define their reputation as professionals. In the scene at 2:00:46 Wallace tries to put Lowell at ease by making it seem like he got the upper hand from corporate. Despite forcing his ideas onto Lowell, he genuinely believes that this is what is best. The intent of his hyperbole was a means of concealment in order not to disclose what Wallace said to corporate. Good observation. He makes clear that he won’t be settling for a radio job out of the sake of morality and justice to the whistleblower or the health of America’s people. Another obstacle that is faced is when Wallace goes to visit Bergman is his hotel room in scene 2:20:03. Nearing the end of life, you’re beginning exemplifies his motivations for the outcome of the episode. Wallace pointed out that he has faced many institutional and personal pressures in pursuit of the truth to gain sympathy from Lowell.

2. A non-disclosure agreement is a legal contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material that they wish to restrict from third parties.  Mr. Wigand felt the necessity to make public B&W’s bad practices, which were silently affecting citizens; however, he knew the implications of disclosing such information. We see the grievance of breaching a non-disclosure agreement when even CBS news, a powerful company, hesitated to publish the material even after everything had been settled to transmit the interview.  CBS knew that not only Wigand was on risk of going to jail, or the 60 Minutes to be shut down, but also the entire channel network could be sue sued by the tobacco company because regardless of bad practices or not, Wigand signed a secrecy agreement ––a legal document that the company would have relied on for its defense. In the end, it would’ve been a monster company against one more employee who was going to have it very difficult to prove that he was practically forced to sign.  It wasn’t exactly an issue of his having been forced to sign. To get the job, he was required to sign. Rather, it was a decision he came to regret. According to columnists Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, many of Donald Trump’s top advisers were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, forcing them to keep quiet about what happens in the White House, even after his presidency ends. They say that these types of secret-keeping contracts are being used in state and local government, too. According to McLuhan, the medium is the message. Even though confidentiality disclosure agreements are not very common in government, some governmental institutions “force” their employees to sign these types of agreements because it is the only way to maintain sensitive information safe. It is imperative to rely on the employees even when involved in unethical activities. However, the employees that sign a confidential agreement are aware that by breaching information they might deal with lawsuits and even jail.

http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-nda-states-trump-confidential-settlement-employee-cities.html

https://cdn.smartresumewizard.com/downloads/non-disclosure-agreement/non-disclosure-agreement.pdf

3. The primary forms of media used by both Scanlon/Lenzner and Palladino were television, newspaper, and radio. At the time, these were the most reliable and valid forms of media that were consumed by the public. McLuhan’s observation about these forms of media is that regardless of the information, the fact that they came from such essential forms of media at the time is what is critical. The public does not need to be concerned over what the television was saying about Wigand, the idea that they could receive this message about him through the television is what is essential.

If this war over Wigand’s reputation had occurred today, current media platforms would have made things very different. The internet is the top place for many people these days to get their news. Social media, and what it is today, would have been beneficial for Wigand and Bergman because posting their findings of B&W online would have created a stir amongst the public as well as a demand for more information that was truthful. The probable public disapproval would be expected today because of the distrust the public has for companies like the tobacco industry. Excellent. Through a medium like Facebook, Youtube, blogs, or even online journals, the film’s characters would have been able to freely discuss the truth about the large corporations with no filters. Large companies like B&W and CBS have lawyers and CEO’s that are looking out for the company as a whole, therefore tend to care more about their profits than getting the truth to the public. Specific people are hired to focus on the company’s image rather than the public’s welfare. Prioritization is something that although still true about large corporations today; there are more ways to bypass this legal system online. Very good.

4. Helen Caperelli, the CBS general counsel, uses a monotone and sophisticated tone throughout the meeting with Bergman, Wallace, and Hewitt. The forceful suggestion offered by Caperelli, suggests that she had the intentions of getting her way despite what Don, Lowell, and Wallace had to say. Helen is presenting the issues of this segment in a civil matter even though if they air it; it would have significant consequences. She is not very emotional, by sticking to a professional manner, she is pressing how important it is for CBS Incorporated not to allow them to show the world the truth about these tobacco companies. Bergman, Wallace, and Hewitt in the scene are showing a more laid back approach to this situation. They are trying to figure out why they can’t release the truth in this case, but then Helen keeps on contradicting herself on the reasons for it. In regards to Miss Caperelli, her target audience was the cast and crew of the 60 Minutes segment of the CBS channel. For Mr. Bergman, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Hewitt their intended audience was towards Miss Helen Caperelli and the legal team of the CBS channel. Miss Caperelli used a more authoritative tone to, in a way, manipulate the men that she was holding the meeting with to bend to the wishes of the CBS channel legal team. She used her position as a lawyer to kind of present a sort of confidence and trustworthiness, and this would fall under the ethos category. However, for the cast and crew of 60 Minutes, the gentlemen presented a form of logic and facts. The points they expressed in the meeting would fall under the category of logos.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: