Scientists and lobbyists share a primary purpose; they both serve to influence the status quo. Both Alfred Kinsey, a scientist, and Nick Naylor, a lobbyist, challenge the boundaries of their society. Whereas Kinsey stimulates the sexual aspect of his society, Naylor pokes at the value of ethics in a cigarette consuming society. The representation of argument is apparent in these films; Kinsey argues for a societal change in the awareness and education of human sexuality whereas Nick Naylor defends the cigarette industry as the Vice-President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. In the film Thank You for Smoking and Kinsey, the rhetoric of argumentation is represented by two men that share allegiance to their work; however, the motive behind their work differs in galactic proportions.
The protagonists of both films were caught in a time frame when promoting sex and cigarettes was taboo. Alfred Kinsey is driven to educate the men and women in his society of the mysteries of human sexuality in a period of time when sex was secret, whereas the job of Nick Naylor is to promote cigarette smoking in a time when the health effects proved it to be a danger to the public’s health. Both these men share a similar predicament, though their approach to these obstacles differs. Kinsey unveils his argument through substantial research conducted by interviews and uses truth to justify his knowledge in an educational setting. Naylor, however, uses manipulation to reinforce the negative habit of smoking and tries to glamorize it in Hollywood movies. While Kinsey’s argumentation enhances the positive improvement of public knowledge, Naylor’s argumentation degrades the health, education, environment, and stereotype for the individuals in his socie...
... middle of paper ...
... effects of oral communication play a noteworthy role in the lives of both men. Considerable damage is done to Naylor’s career while major reparation is accounted for the lives of many Americans and individuals around the globe through Kinsey’s research. Sincerity determines the fate of both these men. The lack of moral flexibility shows that Kinsey was able to have a long term affect on his society in spite of the fact that Naylor was tactically superior in winning an argument through the slyest ways just to bring across a message. In the end, these films show a journey of two men who present the depths of an argument in a world in which a majority of people never deemed to question authority. Ultimately, we are able to explore the root of character and commitment of these two, dissimilar men who share a common bond in their dedication to represent an argument.
Kinsey’s book, also known as the Kinsey Report, was reviewed as well by Reverend John B. Sheerin and he called the work “insignificant.” Circulating were all these negative comm...
Alfred Kinsey remains the most renowned scientists in the field of sexology. His studies yield important information that helped shape the idea of sex and continues to educate all in the most private aspect of our lives. The Kinsey film is a great depiction of his life, research, and impact on the perspectives of sex as we know it.
Thank You for Smoking Rhetorical Analysis: Thank you for not smoking. The film Thank You for Smoking is an obscure jesting that follows a petitioner, Nick Naylor, for the tobacco industry. Murky comedies take a grave topic, and light the topic through mockery. A worthy example of rhetoric can be found in Thank You for Smoking, during a scene where Nick Naylor delivers an argument against putting a skull and crossbones label on every pack of cigarettes. Senator Finistirre does this during a hearing in front of a congressional committee lead by Vermont.
This film influenced me greatly and how I might be able to go about in my speech making. James Farmer Jr. and his debate team delivered their speeches with a lot of emotion, drawing their audiences in on their side. James Farmer used his own experiences and struggles to drive his speech making, while trying to prove himself to everyone that he was not just a child. Although James Farmer and I are different, especially in the way we present our speeches, I admired the way he used his knowledge and emotions to help win the last debate
During the movie, I found that these concepts that were taught in class helped me better understand and relate to certain clips of the movie. Throughout the rest of the paper, I will be going into a bit more detail about exactly what these concepts are and mean, following that I will be giving examples from the movie that demonstrate the concepts of conflict and politeness theory.
American musician, Jerry Garcia, states, “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” This is essentially the underlying principle of comparing two kinds of harmful effects, as one can try outshine the other but will still be detrimental. In the article, “Tune Out, Light Up”, Dave Kopel is trying to persuade readers in the article that watching television is worse than smoking cigarettes. The article poses an overall unsuccessful argument, as it expresses the views thoroughly with certain support and tries to use various appeals but fails to suggest essential evidence and realistic views. This article is trying to show how smoking cigarettes is better than watching television, as it goes into numerous points of how television can destroy many more years off of lives than smoking, making it less preferable than cigarettes. Kopel uses the classical appeals of pathos,
The plot evokes deep thought within its characters, as they constantly struggle with their evolving goals and values. Lowell Bergman represents the newsman with integrity, but in his quest to deliver the news, his pledge to his source is compromised and he is forced to balance and prioritize his values. Jeffrey Wigand begins as a family man, but in his crusade he loses everything he once had and has to deal with newly altered values and goals. Wigand is the insider in that he has the information to bring down the tobacco industry, but Bergman is also an insider in that he is the newsman with the power to inform the public. In the end, both men are considered heroes because they got the secret out that nicotine is a
This is a review of the article The Marlboro Man: Cigarette Smoking and Masculinity in America, written by Michael E. Starr in 1984 for the Journal of Popular Culture. The article examines what factors were involved in diminishing the unmanly stigma associated with cigarette smoking in the twentieth century. The United States is the geographical focus. The time period ranges, but the bulk of the article deals with 1900 to 1970.
Political systems within the United States work together to establish laws and create boundaries for their people. Government officials work with the Senate in Congress to help establish regulations not only for the American people but also for corporations in order to not become monopolies in today’s market. This all corresponds to a legislative process in order for Congress to have a clear idea of passing effective laws that help reinforce results within our society. Members of Congress and political affiliations are impacted by representatives from large business corporations through the process of bribing these government officials into supporting the ideas and desires of these corporations. In order for this to occur, these companies engage in lobbying. Lobbying is the attempt to influence government officials in decision making processes or swaying the government by employing tactics through various agreements in the form of verbal or written statements to public officials in Congress. This usually occurs through donations of large amounts of money to members of Congress as a way of bribing them to support the representatives of these corporations. Therefore, corporations have widely influenced Congress, making it difficult to pass laws and bills that are not in favor of these corporations. Thus, lobbying is influenced by money and promotes the interests of these specific corporations.
Public policy is the course of actions taken by the government that includes laws, plans, actions and the behavior of the government. The most effective way to influence public policy would be to lobby for the interest group that supports the problem that needs to be addressed by society and the government. Interest groups are organizations of people with shared goals to influence specific public policies, such as the National Rifle Association wanting to protect gun rights. The representatives for these particular interest groups are called lobbyists, whom are registered to inform the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate of the issue or laws being addressed, what agencies/branches of the government are being contacted, and the amount of money being spent on these issues. They can also represent private individuals or the general public. The word itself implies that lobbyists are the ones who directly contact the lawmakers of congress or other government officials, while making indirect contact through raising awareness in their communities for action. In order to make change, lobbying would be most effective because they are honest and assist the government with legislations other than their own, they work hard with the community and politicians, and most importantly they are the most knowledgeable and experienced on issues and politics so that the best decisions are able to be made.
Countering the Culture of Sex is an article by Ellen Goodman dealing with the entertainment industry’s plague upon society. With sex rooted deep in children’s minds it creates this idea of what life revolves around. Digging deeper, Goodman brings up the point of why one never sees the consequences of sex. If the media were to show the consequences of people’s actions, the industry could create a sense of fear into the public.
While the film focuses mainly on the theme of media responsibility and covers US’s politics in the early 1950s, it also encircles around other crucial themes such as sexism. This essay discusses about how this film is used as a tool for objectivity, agenda setting, stereotyping within gender, and how these has impacted the characters in the movie and viewers.
In the film Thank you for smoking, Nick Naylor- the main character of the film employs rhetorical devices such as re-framing, hyperbole and numerous logical fallacies to win his argument
Teenagers and Adults, Smoking/Cigarettes. Most people tend to think of those clubs with the drum and a few instruments on the stage, with the words being spoken by a guy wearing black and a beanie placed on his head. But it’s more than coffee and a crowd. It such a simple word, a simple way of amplifying a situation, a way to subtle give a message or blatantly point it out. Especially if it can change a person’s life, to better it, by quitting something harmful to their health like smoking. There is one man whom has gotten his point across, Nick Flynn has passed on a message that is clear and honest, in Some Ether, “I know cigarettes can kill & wonder why she wants to die.” (GoodReads Inc. 2). Cigarettes can lead to many different pains, whether they be losing several pieces of their body from a fingers to a leg…or worse. It’s not just a blackened lung and a lifelong cough, it is a destruction that can or will last a lifetime and not just to the smoker.
Thank you for smoking is a satirical comedy about a lobbyist whose job is to promote tobacco use at a time when the disease burden secondary to smoking threatens to cripple the nation. The film presents how industries, media and the government interact to influence the consumers’ decision. While the use of rhetoric, such as fallacies and twisted truths, is evident throughout the film, it is most evident midway when the chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, assists his son with his assignment. The son, Joey Naylor, enquires why the American government is the best and in response, the father argues it is because of America’s ‘endless appeals system’ (Thank you for smoking). His response seamlessly captures the tone of the movie as much as it represents the extensive use of a combination of fallacious arguments and twisted truths.