This movie was definitely one of my favorite movies that we've watched in this class. It really brought into focus many ethic issues. There were definitely some good ethics and there were definitely some bad ethics. I really respected Jeffery Wigand, because he had the courage to step forward about the tabacco company and the increased nicotine addiction in cigarettes. I think anybody would find it hard to go up against a pwerful company after signing a confidentiality agreement. What really surprised me was that sixty minutes pulled the plug on the broadcast about the nicotine enhancement. I think was sixty minutes did was in conflict with truth and loyalty stated in the code of ethics. I say truth, becasue even though they weren't lying, they were with-holding the truth that people should have known, which brings me to why sixty minutes was in conflict with the loyalty ethic. Even though, to be loayl to their viewers, they should have aired the episone revealing the nicotine enhancement, they did not. And they did not, becasue they were more concerned about how this would affect them, and not what they should be doing for their viewers. So, once again, this movie is just another prime example of how broadcasting companies are really actually concerned about themselves and what they can do to bring in money, and what they can avoid so they don't lose money.
More information about text formats