Activism Change

The Insider (the Movie)

Question:

Joyce, unfortunately I do not think that dragon will ever be slain. BT has it’s hands in WAY too many other major Corporations to ever go down. Not to mention my father sent me an article recently, about how all these states that have won BIG $$$$$ from tobacco industry have a special interest now in their survival. In otherwords states like Florida, Texas and all others that one BB’s $$$ want the $$$$’s they won. In order to obtain those $$$$’s BT MUST stay in business and THRIVE. Now isn’t that ironic? Sounds like a plotted scam to me, but hey I am a big skeptisist. Gwen 2M+ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   BT is not dead yet.  It will take a while to slay that dragon. Joyce DOF

Response:

To sum up, I thought the movie did justice to the to the anguish of the insider.  How dreadful it must be to know that you would put your life and your family’s lives at risk by doing what you know is right.  That’s a real moral dilemma. Maybe it wasn’t entirely true.  Maybe there were liberties taken.  But haven’t those tobacco companies played fast and loose with our lives for years???? I don’t think I’ve adequately answered your question.  But it’s a very big question.

source: http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/insider.htm Everyone should go see Disney’s new movie "The Insider." It’s celluloid proof the anti-tobacco industry has gone overboard. The plot is the struggle of Jeffrey Wigand, a senior tobacco executive-turned-whistleblower, to get his "compelling" story broadcast on the television news show "60 Minutes." Egged on by "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), Wigand must overcome family and legal problems, and — supposedly — intimidation by his former employer to get his story aired. The story’s credibility is hampered from the opening scene when, in an effort to portray "60 Minutes" as the "gold standard" of television news, Bergman persuades an Iranian mullah to be interviewed by Mike Wallace. When the mullah asks why he should do the interview, Bergman says "60 Minutes" can portray the Hezbollah, a terrorist group, to Americans as a "political party." Wigand gets the same sort of "spin." The movie generates sympathy for Wigand and antipathy towards the tobacco industry by depicting Wigand’s former employer, the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company, as an evil corporation willing to do anything to stop Wigand from telling his "compelling" story. But when you cut through the drama, the story is pretty thin. Wigand was fired from Brown & Williamson because of a drinking problem. Losing his job forced a significant downscale in his family’s lifestyle. What follows next is a series of alleged efforts by Brown & Williamson to intimidate Wigand — none of which were corroborated. Wigand is impliedly threatened by Brown & Williamson CEO Thomas Sandefeur in Sandfeur’s office. But the alleged meeting, let alone the threat, may never have occurred. A death threat appears on Wigand’s home computer. A man glares at the obviously paranoid Wigand at an evening session on the driving range. Wigand’s child thinks she hears someone in the backyard one night, causing Wigand to reach for his gun. (I presume when Disney makes the movie about a gun industry whistleblower, he’ll reach for a cigarette!) The most ominous effort of intimidation occurs when Wigand finds a bullet in his mailbox a scene featured prominently in the movie’s trailer. Not only are these scenes uncorroborated, the death threats are doubted — in real life — by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An FBI affidavit concludes that Wigand faked the death threat on the computer. The FBI also concluded Wigand placed the bullet in the mailbox — a fact hurriedly glossed over. The movie moves to Wigand’s legal struggle, where his confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williamson and a Kentucky state court block Wigand’s story. In scenes featuring cameos by former Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore, an anti-tobacco zealot portraying himself, Wigand’s story finally emerges. Wigand acknowledges the tobacco industry does not "spike" cigarettes with nicotine, claims nicotine levels are "manipulated," and offers his opinion that seven tobacco executives committed perjury before the U.S. Congress when they denied nicotine was "addictive." Not shown in the movie, Wigand also admitted he was aware of no criminal or fraudulent behavior by Brown & Williamson. Pardon me while I yawn. I’m not sure this constituites "whistleblowing" — sucking air is more like it. Wigand had no revelations of any significance to the public or its health. The health consequences of excessive smoking have been known for a long time — from the 19th century coining of the phrase "coffin nail" to Nazi lung cancer research, to U.S. Government pronouncements on the dangers of smoking in the 1950s and 1960s and culminating with the 1966 health warning on cigarette packages. Knowledge of the effects of nicotine and that nicotine levels are altered downward during tobacco processing are not new either. Wigand comes off as a pathetic character with extensive personal problems who was convinced (conned?) by "60 Minutes" producer Bergman and the anti-tobacco industry to go out on a limb to "expose" the tobacco industry. Touted on screen by Bergman as "the key witness on the biggest public health reform issue in U.S. history, "Wigand has hardly lived up to that billing, having testified in a tobacco trial only once. That trial was a win for the tobacco industry. The end of the movie focuses on the internal struggle at "60 Minutes to air Wigand’s interview with Wallace (uncannily portrayed by Christopher Plummer). Wallace, incidently, continued to advertise cigarettes on television as late as 1962, well after scientists and the U.S. Government reported that smoking can be harmful. The movie never shows Wigand’s interview — undoubtedly because, like "60 Minutes," Disney was fearful of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit by Brown& Williamson. But the most revealing part of the movie comes when the almost three-hour borefest ends. As with the recent "official" biography of President Ronald Reagan, where the author inserted himself into Reagan’s life as a contemporary fictional character making it difficult to discern fact from fantasy, Disney makes the same mistake. The legend at the end of the movie states "Although the film is based on a true story, certain events depicted in the film have been fictionalized for dramatic effect." Which ones? Who knows? This is a recurring problem. Last year, Disney released "A Civil Action," starring John Travolta as a personal injury lawyer battling a chemical company allegedly responsible for improper chemical disposal and ensuing cases of leukemia among several local children. That movie also took dramatic license with the facts. No scientific investigation linked the company with the leukemias a fact ignored by Disney. At the time, I wrote that Disney deserved an Oscar for activism, but not for realism. "The Insider" makes Disney a lock for that same award two years running. Anti-tobacco industry oberfuehrer Stanton Glantz calls "The Insider" a "chilling and important film." I agree, in part. In the end, the movie is simply the story of an emotionally disturbed man exploited by a slick television producer and hung out to dry by a major media company unwilling to risk its existence on the volatile mix. "The Insider" does an excellent — and well-deserved — job of discrediting the Jeffrey Wigand story before tens of millions of viewers worldwide. — VOFroggie Het leven is leuk zonder peuk. Margriet van Tol.

Response:

Joyce, I thought some of the movie must have been fiction too.  I mean they wouldn’t really threaten his family? or threaten to kill him. But later I found out it was true. He is teaching high school science now. sherry 6m P.S.  In law school, when I read a lot of whistle blower cases, I was struck that they were all kind of odd, hysterical people.  Were they that way to begin with?  I was always afraid to think the totally sane ones were keeping quiet.  Of course, being involved in a law suit will make the most well-balanced of us absolutely nuts.  Lawyers don’t explain that often enough. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

And, important was Wiegand, to the demise of big Tobacco?

Yes, I saw it.  Was Wiegand’s interview instrumental in bringing BT to trial? I believe he was.  Else why would he still be lying low? But let me ask you something, Greg.  Didn’t you know that smoking was bad for you before you got to this NG? I sure did.  But I still couldn’t quit on my own. I believe we do bear a certain degree of responsibilty for our own predicaments.  I cannot blame anyone or any entity for what I chose to inflict upon my own body. On the other hand, it’s eerie to know that BT has consistently lied and tried to dupe the public into believing that its product, cigarettes, was safe for all to use.  Even for children. I’m not so sure the point of the movie was that Wiegand was some kind of hero. He wasn’t.  He lived well off our addictions.  Maybe the point was that he was tormented by his own knowledge. That’s a hard place to be.  And he had to know that he would be throwing away his good life by revealing what he knew.  Hey, I don’t know.  Maybe he’s living some other kind of good life.  As a flunky for some other company.  What if we find out that peanut butter is addictive and leads to a fatal disease?  Will I still spread peanut butter on my toasted English Muffin?  Will the peanut butter Wiegand rush to 60 Minutes with his story?  Okay so the BT Wiegand didn’t rush, he was seduced.  Oh, doesn’t that sound lame? And why am I still eating peanut butter? Anyway, Greg.  BT is not dead yet.  It will take a while to slay that dragon. For those of us who have already quit, BT might as well be dead.  But our children are still out there looking for ways to appear daring and grown-up and worldly wise.  For them BT has the answer.  And is not shy about spreading its message. This comes from someone who smoked for more than 40 years and worked for one of the ad agencies for a BT firm. To get back to the movie.  I thought it was very well done, especially in showing how craven CBS management was in forcing 60 Minutes to pull the interview. I thought at the time that Wiegand was courageous for spilling his guts.  And then when CBS pulled the story I thought oh <expletive another bullet in the heart of free speech. But there are always stories under the stories in news. To sum up, I thought the movie did justice to the to the anguish of the insider.  How dreadful it must be to know that you would put your life and your family’s lives at risk by doing what you know is right.  That’s a real moral dilemma. Maybe it wasn’t entirely true.  Maybe there were liberties taken.  But haven’t those tobacco companies played fast and loose with our lives for years???? I don’t think I’ve adequately answered your question.  But it’s a very big question. Joyce DOF

Response:

 Has anyone seen this movie? I just rented it and vaguely remember, the 60 Minutes interview with Jeff Wiegand.  Does anyone have any opinions on this movie? And, important was Wiegand, to the demise of big Tobacco? Greg P.

Response:

 Has anyone seen this movie? I just rented it and vaguely remember, the 60 Minutes interview with Jeff Wiegand.  Does anyone have any opinions on this movie? And, important was Wiegand, to the demise of big Tobacco? Greg P.

Response:

Joyce, I thought some of the movie must have been fiction too.  I mean they wouldn’t really threaten his family? or threaten to kill him. But later I found out it was true. He is teaching high school science now. sherry 6m P.S.  In law school, when I read a lot of whistle blower cases, I was struck that they were all kind of odd, hysterical people.  Were they that way to begin with?  I was always afraid to think the totally sane ones were keeping quiet.  Of course, being involved in a law suit will make the most well-balanced of us absolutely nuts.  Lawyers don’t explain that often enough. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

And, important was Wiegand, to the demise of big Tobacco?

Yes, I saw it.  Was Wiegand’s interview instrumental in bringing BT to trial? I believe he was.  Else why would he still be lying low? But let me ask you something, Greg.  Didn’t you know that smoking was bad for you before you got to this NG? I sure did.  But I still couldn’t quit on my own. I believe we do bear a certain degree of responsibilty for our own predicaments.  I cannot blame anyone or any entity for what I chose to inflict upon my own body. On the other hand, it’s eerie to know that BT has consistently lied and tried to dupe the public into believing that its product, cigarettes, was safe for all to use.  Even for children. I’m not so sure the point of the movie was that Wiegand was some kind of hero. He wasn’t.  He lived well off our addictions.  Maybe the point was that he was tormented by his own knowledge. That’s a hard place to be.  And he had to know that he would be throwing away his good life by revealing what he knew.  Hey, I don’t know.  Maybe he’s living some other kind of good life.  As a flunky for some other company.  What if we find out that peanut butter is addictive and leads to a fatal disease?  Will I still spread peanut butter on my toasted English Muffin?  Will the peanut butter Wiegand rush to 60 Minutes with his story?  Okay so the BT Wiegand didn’t rush, he was seduced.  Oh, doesn’t that sound lame? And why am I still eating peanut butter? Anyway, Greg.  BT is not dead yet.  It will take a while to slay that dragon. For those of us who have already quit, BT might as well be dead.  But our children are still out there looking for ways to appear daring and grown-up and worldly wise.  For them BT has the answer.  And is not shy about spreading its message. This comes from someone who smoked for more than 40 years and worked for one of the ad agencies for a BT firm. To get back to the movie.  I thought it was very well done, especially in showing how craven CBS management was in forcing 60 Minutes to pull the interview. I thought at the time that Wiegand was courageous for spilling his guts.  And then when CBS pulled the story I thought oh <expletive another bullet in the heart of free speech. But there are always stories under the stories in news. To sum up, I thought the movie did justice to the to the anguish of the insider.  How dreadful it must be to know that you would put your life and your family’s lives at risk by doing what you know is right.  That’s a real moral dilemma. Maybe it wasn’t entirely true.  Maybe there were liberties taken.  But haven’t those tobacco companies played fast and loose with our lives for years???? I don’t think I’ve adequately answered your question.  But it’s a very big question. Joyce DOF

Response:

To sum up, I thought the movie did justice to the to the anguish of the insider.  How dreadful it must be to know that you would put your life and your family’s lives at risk by doing what you know is right.  That’s a real moral dilemma. Maybe it wasn’t entirely true.  Maybe there were liberties taken.  But haven’t those tobacco companies played fast and loose with our lives for years???? I don’t think I’ve adequately answered your question.  But it’s a very big question.

source: http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/insider.htm Everyone should go see Disney’s new movie "The Insider." It’s celluloid proof the anti-tobacco industry has gone overboard. The plot is the struggle of Jeffrey Wigand, a senior tobacco executive-turned-whistleblower, to get his "compelling" story broadcast on the television news show "60 Minutes." Egged on by "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), Wigand must overcome family and legal problems, and — supposedly — intimidation by his former employer to get his story aired. The story’s credibility is hampered from the opening scene when, in an effort to portray "60 Minutes" as the "gold standard" of television news, Bergman persuades an Iranian mullah to be interviewed by Mike Wallace. When the mullah asks why he should do the interview, Bergman says "60 Minutes" can portray the Hezbollah, a terrorist group, to Americans as a "political party." Wigand gets the same sort of "spin." The movie generates sympathy for Wigand and antipathy towards the tobacco industry by depicting Wigand’s former employer, the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company, as an evil corporation willing to do anything to stop Wigand from telling his "compelling" story. But when you cut through the drama, the story is pretty thin. Wigand was fired from Brown & Williamson because of a drinking problem. Losing his job forced a significant downscale in his family’s lifestyle. What follows next is a series of alleged efforts by Brown & Williamson to intimidate Wigand — none of which were corroborated. Wigand is impliedly threatened by Brown & Williamson CEO Thomas Sandefeur in Sandfeur’s office. But the alleged meeting, let alone the threat, may never have occurred. A death threat appears on Wigand’s home computer. A man glares at the obviously paranoid Wigand at an evening session on the driving range. Wigand’s child thinks she hears someone in the backyard one night, causing Wigand to reach for his gun. (I presume when Disney makes the movie about a gun industry whistleblower, he’ll reach for a cigarette!) The most ominous effort of intimidation occurs when Wigand finds a bullet in his mailbox a scene featured prominently in the movie’s trailer. Not only are these scenes uncorroborated, the death threats are doubted — in real life — by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An FBI affidavit concludes that Wigand faked the death threat on the computer. The FBI also concluded Wigand placed the bullet in the mailbox — a fact hurriedly glossed over. The movie moves to Wigand’s legal struggle, where his confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williamson and a Kentucky state court block Wigand’s story. In scenes featuring cameos by former Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore, an anti-tobacco zealot portraying himself, Wigand’s story finally emerges. Wigand acknowledges the tobacco industry does not "spike" cigarettes with nicotine, claims nicotine levels are "manipulated," and offers his opinion that seven tobacco executives committed perjury before the U.S. Congress when they denied nicotine was "addictive." Not shown in the movie, Wigand also admitted he was aware of no criminal or fraudulent behavior by Brown & Williamson. Pardon me while I yawn. I’m not sure this constituites "whistleblowing" — sucking air is more like it. Wigand had no revelations of any significance to the public or its health. The health consequences of excessive smoking have been known for a long time — from the 19th century coining of the phrase "coffin nail" to Nazi lung cancer research, to U.S. Government pronouncements on the dangers of smoking in the 1950s and 1960s and culminating with the 1966 health warning on cigarette packages. Knowledge of the effects of nicotine and that nicotine levels are altered downward during tobacco processing are not new either. Wigand comes off as a pathetic character with extensive personal problems who was convinced (conned?) by "60 Minutes" producer Bergman and the anti-tobacco industry to go out on a limb to "expose" the tobacco industry. Touted on screen by Bergman as "the key witness on the biggest public health reform issue in U.S. history, "Wigand has hardly lived up to that billing, having testified in a tobacco trial only once. That trial was a win for the tobacco industry. The end of the movie focuses on the internal struggle at "60 Minutes to air Wigand’s interview with Wallace (uncannily portrayed by Christopher Plummer). Wallace, incidently, continued to advertise cigarettes on television as late as 1962, well after scientists and the U.S. Government reported that smoking can be harmful. The movie never shows Wigand’s interview — undoubtedly because, like "60 Minutes," Disney was fearful of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit by Brown& Williamson. But the most revealing part of the movie comes when the almost three-hour borefest ends. As with the recent "official" biography of President Ronald Reagan, where the author inserted himself into Reagan’s life as a contemporary fictional character making it difficult to discern fact from fantasy, Disney makes the same mistake. The legend at the end of the movie states "Although the film is based on a true story, certain events depicted in the film have been fictionalized for dramatic effect." Which ones? Who knows? This is a recurring problem. Last year, Disney released "A Civil Action," starring John Travolta as a personal injury lawyer battling a chemical company allegedly responsible for improper chemical disposal and ensuing cases of leukemia among several local children. That movie also took dramatic license with the facts. No scientific investigation linked the company with the leukemias a fact ignored by Disney. At the time, I wrote that Disney deserved an Oscar for activism, but not for realism. "The Insider" makes Disney a lock for that same award two years running. Anti-tobacco industry oberfuehrer Stanton Glantz calls "The Insider" a "chilling and important film." I agree, in part. In the end, the movie is simply the story of an emotionally disturbed man exploited by a slick television producer and hung out to dry by a major media company unwilling to risk its existence on the volatile mix. "The Insider" does an excellent — and well-deserved — job of discrediting the Jeffrey Wigand story before tens of millions of viewers worldwide. — VOFroggie Het leven is leuk zonder peuk. Margriet van Tol.

Response:

Joyce, unfortunately I do not think that dragon will ever be slain. BT has it’s hands in WAY too many other major Corporations to ever go down. Not to mention my father sent me an article recently, about how all these states that have won BIG $$$$$ from tobacco industry have a special interest now in their survival. In otherwords states like Florida, Texas and all others that one BB’s $$$ want the $$$$’s they won. In order to obtain those $$$$’s BT MUST stay in business and THRIVE. Now isn’t that ironic? Sounds like a plotted scam to me, but hey I am a big skeptisist. Gwen 2M+ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   BT is not dead yet.  It will take a while to slay that dragon. Joyce DOF

Response:

Filed under: Media activism

Related Posts

• July Media Bypass - McVeigh 168, Feds 1
• Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points
• BUSH PROMOTES "LOOSE NUKES" IN IRAQ: REPORT
• CIA, State Dept Widen War in Bosnia (& Wash.Post Covers for Them)
• Mother Cassini, continued
• Selling Homosexuality
• Shame! Elderly Black Voters in Florida Questioned by *Armed* *Troopers*
• What Rep. Barney Frank REALLY Did
• Medical Record availability
• CONSERVATIVE BRITISH POLITICIANS TO BUSH: SIGN KYOTO