Table of ContentsPublic ManipulationCorruptionLogical FallaciesSeductionConclusionStrategic communication is the practice of communicating with a grand agenda, or some sort of master plan. It instills the idea of ​​conveying messages to the public as well as conveying them to the target audience. This is a fairly recent emergence in the field of communication, as strategic communication was born thanks to the rise of social media, where the relationship between the public and information is closer than ever. It differs from public relations (PR) in the sense that strategic communication constitutes the largest and broadest part of the communications field of which PR is a subset. To communicate strategically, a practitioner must walk a fine line between achieving goals and achieving goals unethically. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay The question between ethics and strategic communication is a hot topic that has been the subject of debate among researchers in the field, especially when there are impacts on the public or the public concerned. This problem can be seen through the film “Thank You for Smoking”, released in 2005. This film was directed by Jason Reitman and produced by David O'Sacks, starring Aaron Eckhart, Katie Holmes, William H. Macy and Cameron Bright . “Thank You for Smoking” is a film that revolves around the professional life of Nick Naylor, a tobacco industry lobbyist. Throughout the film, Nick's profession came under scrutiny from the anti-smoking public. Indeed, the industry Nick works for advocates smoking for the sake of tobacco production. Nick's field of activity includes promoting smoking among American consumers. His task as a lobbyist falls within what Lock, Seele and Heath (2016) describe as “classic” lobbying, where he collects the information necessary to influence the public's mind. This responsibility of Nick was not well accepted by the public, as shown in the beginning of the film where Nick was one of the panelists on the Joan Lunden Show on television. The crowd shouts boos and insults at him before he even speaks. He also experienced a slight complication when introducing the limitations of his profession to his son, Joey, and his classmates, where he had to twist and turn some of the children's specters. The course of the film was driven by Nick's motivation towards his work. , his practices in the exercise of his responsibilities, as well as his own reflection when it comes to setting an example for his son. Throughout his career, he clung to the “Nuremberg Yuppie Defense,” including blaming his unethical behavior on mortgage payments. This has become a norm among lobbyists, particularly through the trio of “Merchants of Death,” in which lobbyists normally have a standard set of standards (Berg, 2012), in this case the aforementioned “defense.” Nick also had to meet Heather Holloway, a journalist who manipulated him into exposing the ugly side of the industry he was investing his time and energy into. The film ended with him leaving the tobacco industry and starting his own company specializing in strategic communications. . As mentioned above, several ethical issues were called into question by Nick and Heather's practices as they carried out their respective responsibilities. These issues can be categorized, analyzed and criticized according to the following aspects: public manipulation; corruption; logical errors;and seduction.Public ManipulationThis is the most egregious ethical question committed, in this case, by Nick Naylor himself. Throughout the film, Nick uses his talent for speaking and arguing to manipulate the public's opinions, reception, and attitude toward smoking. Of course, even if their attitude towards the notion of smoking was initially negative, thanks to his eloquence, Nick managed to manipulate them, that is, to draw their attention to another problem, or to convince them that it is okay to smoke citing the concept of personal choice. Nick's unethical conduct in terms of public manipulation will be discussed in more detail throughout this section. First, in the "Joan Lunden Show" scene, Nick intercepted Ron Goode's (Senator's spokesperson) speaking turn by immediately drawing everyone's attention to what he wanted to convey. He mentioned something that amounted to calling for unwarranted blame on the tobacco industry, then shifted the focus to the government (in the film, Ron Goode was the government representative), in which he claimed that "they want the Robin Willigers to die", to quote Nick's line in the film. The shift in blame clearly affected the crowd as their facial expressions softened to nods of agreement and an admission of the issue they were focused on. As a result, Ron Goode did not get his turn as he had planned; instead, the show immediately went on hiatus, cutting off his opportunity to refute blame. This is blatantly unethical conduct on the part of the lobbyist, in which he has not revealed the truth about the industry he serves, but has simply shifted the public's attention elsewhere thing. This goes against the ethical conduct of transparency. Another example of public manipulation committed by Nick is that he floated the idea of ​​introducing smoking into films and shows; like setting an example in the form of famous people to tell the public that smoking is a norm and it is not a bad thing that happens in humanity. The cinematic idea of ​​seeing Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones having sex in space and smoking while doing it, while naming a brand new cigarette after the space station/area, constitutes positive public representation of the image of the act of smoking. Nick's meeting with Jeff Megall, the Hollywood super-agent, further reinforces Nick's unethical conduct as a lobbyist or public relations representative for the tobacco industry, in which he attempted to instill in public that smoking is good behavior, while in truth, it is not. The third form of public manipulation committed by Nick Naylor was the scene in which he took advantage of his life or death situation to further convince the audience that smoking, or in this case, nicotine, saved his life. Before this scene, Nick was kidnapped by someone from the audience and he was dabbed with lots of nicotine patches, an act that would have killed him due to the sudden overdose of nicotine in his system. The doctor himself proved that it was a miracle that Nick survived the incident. Nick later appealed to reporters and claimed that smoking saved his life. This is clearly a plot twist and manipulation of the situation, and it has worked well for Nick and the industry's cause. It's unethical and immoral because people around him, for example Joey, his ex-wife, BR, etc. were very concerned about his well-being. He simply acted in a workaholic state of mind, not paying attention to his surroundingsand his situation. The final example of public manipulation in this film took place during the public hearing, or convention, regarding whether or not to include the "Poison" label on cigarette boxes. Nick appeared to testify and he convinced the audience by distorting and manipulating the concept of humanism. Humanism is a school of thought that advocates the improvement of human life. Along the lines of what is conveyed through the film, the debate at the convention was whether Nick would allow Joey to smoke on his 18th birthday. At this, Nick used his words to persuade himself and the audience that it is the children's choice if they want to smoke. The notions of "freedom to choose" and "personal rights" were distorted in this scene and it appealed to the American public at that time because historically, it was the foundation of America's development. Simply put, Nick's conduct in manipulating the public into believing that smoking is acceptable and not harmful constitutes an unethical performance of his work as a lobbyist and public spokesperson. This is a serious violation of the public relations code of conduct and ethics, as he failed to demonstrate any transparency or honesty. Through this aspect, we can also see how lobbyists use the media to manipulate the public. This is supported by Miller, Brownbill, Dono, and Ettridge (2018), in which industries use media coverage to impact audiences. Corruption Another unethical conduct of Nick Naylor as a tobacco industry lobbyist is that he resorted to corruption to advance his agenda. and the cause of industry. The clearest example of corruption in this film is the part where the Captain asked Nick to deliver a briefcase containing money to Lorne Lutch, a former celebrity, nicknamed the Marlboro-Man, in order to do so keep quiet about smoking-related issues. Lutch was diagnosed with an illness linked to his former smoking habit, making him an advocate for the anti-smoking campaign. Since he was a public and influential figure, the captain felt it would be in their best interest to keep him silent. However, the unethical conduct is not focused on the captain, but on the method Nick used against Lutch: lying. It seemed difficult to convince a dying man to keep quiet about the major cause of his predicament, but Nick had to find a way to get him to take the money, which would, in turn, allow him to keep quiet completely. Nick unethically manipulated and lied to Lutch about the real deal he was responsible for convincing the latter to do. Nick twisted the situation into an imaginary event and issued an ultimatum, which could only lead to Lutch taking the money. Thanks to a little vision game about the future, Nick managed to persuade him to take the money and stop his movement against smoking. This is unethical conduct because it involves complete dishonesty to the public, in this case Lorne Lutch. Honesty is a key ethical code in public relations and Nick broke this code, through the evil of corruption, in order to accomplish his task. In the film, it's not just Nick who commits bribery. The Tobacco Academy has also been portrayed as having bribed lawyers so that their unethical and illegal conduct would escape legal and public attention. Therefore, it can be said that the act of corruption, although minor, had a huge impact on the audience, while leading the characters to commit other ethical violations, such as being dishonest and manipulative. Logical errors The pointNick Naylor's strong point is to argue. and speak, as he himself claimed in the film. However, to observe his unethical conduct in the film, it is also important to see how his arguments unfold through logical fallacies. Logical fallacies can be defined as errors in arguments that have the potential to gain undeserved credit for the arguer. Throughout the film, Nick made many logical errors that caused him to argue and unethically convey the messages he was trying to convey. The first mistake he made was “appealing to emotion.” This logical fallacy appeals to the emotion, compassion and pity of opponents. Basically, making this mistake is manipulating the audience's thought process via emotion. This is evident in the scene where Nick attended the demonstration event for the students' fathers at Joey's school. The children bombarded him with anti-smoking questions, but he then influenced their concerns by asking them whether they would choose chocolate even if their parents said chocolates were bad. He appealed to their emotions by citing something that is close to children's hearts: chocolate. He also made the same mistake, with the same argument, while having dinner with Joey, while teaching him the art of arguing. Then he made the “Red Herring” mistake. This mistake is made by raising irrelevant answers or issues, in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand. Nick made this mistake several times in the film, but the most egregious example would be the scene where Nick was testifying at Senator Finisterre's convention on the application of the "Poison" label and the image of 'a skull and crossbones on every cigarette pack in America. . Asked whether such labels were appropriate, Nick deflected the question by saying that if cigarettes should be labeled as dangerous because of the number of deaths, then Boeing planes and Ford cars should be too, while adding a personal note on the senator saying that Vermont cheddar cheese is a leading cause of cholesterol, thus being the leading cause of death in America. This is an obvious “red herring” mistake that, in turn, has obscured his transparency on the issue and manipulated the public into focusing on other issues. These are the two major logical fallacies that impacted throughout the process. the movie. They were impactful because they, in some sense, impacted the way Nick carried out his duties as an industry lobbyist, leading him to commit unethical dealing behaviors public. So, it's safe to say that Nick's unethical behaviors in the film sit alongside the logical fallacies he made along the way. Seduction In the film “Thanks for Smoking,” Nick Naylor is not the only character to violate the code of ethics regarding strategic communications. Heather Holloway is a reporter seeking insight into the life of Nick, the tobacco lobbyist, and his responsibilities as a public official. She went to great lengths to get the necessary and impactful information about Nick and his work. Ultimately, his extreme lengths led to his downfall as a journalist, tarnishing his reputation and credibility. The means used by Heather in the film was seduction. She seduced Nick into having sex with her, while gradually digging up information. This is unethical conduct on the part of a journalist because her action..