A Critical Analysis of Lobbying Ethics in 'Thank You for Smoking'

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the film 'Thank You for Smoking,' focusing on the ethical and political dimensions of lobbying as portrayed through the character of Nick Naylor. It addresses questions about the role of government in regulating dangerous products, the moral implications of advocating for the smoking industry, and the accuracy of the film's depiction of lobbying in America. The essay explores how Nick Naylor employs rhetoric and persuasion to influence public opinion and policy, and it connects these themes to broader concepts of interest group politics. The analysis also considers the potential for viewers to learn about the dynamics of power and influence in American politics through the film's narrative. This document is available on Desklib, a platform offering a wealth of study resources for students.

RUNNING HEAD- THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 1
NAME OF THE STUDENT
NAME OF THE COLLEGE
MOVIE- “THANKYOU FOR SMOKING”
THEORIES AND CONCEPTS

THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 2
QUESTION 1-
At the Congressional hearing, Nick implicitly argues that, by putting poison labels on packs
of cigarettes, the U.S. government would be bound to put poison labels on all consumer
goods dangerous to our health. Senator Finistirre scoffs at this position. With whom do you
agree and why?
ANSWER 1-
I agree with the reaction of the lobbyist named nick Naylor in the movie “thank you
for smoking”. While speaking in the front of the committee, the character holds his view
higher than each one of the member present there. The one thing that is very much
appreciable is the call for liberty and freedom that he argues for while deciding a health factor
when it comes to smoking amongst people. The idea of calling a product, dangerous for
health is not something which is too taught by the product manufacturer or the seller but it
must be taught to the public in their own families. His take on the question, that whether he
would allow hi son to smoke cigarettes was firm and passionate. When asked the same, the
driven character tells the committee that if the son wants it, he would offer that by himself.
Nick’s claim to the following question was in context of liberty and choice. He
believes that people are taught of the hazards of tobacco at home and each one is aware of the
same. Even the film initially knows that tobacco is dangerous for health but the duty of
announcing it to people does not lie with the tobacco selling industries. The sole idea of
consuming must be left to a personal opinion. Nick Naylor’s character has a condescending
tone, which believes in outwitting the opponent, not by arguing but by not allowing the
opposite party deny him.
The character believes that if tobacco is to carry a warning sign on its packets then, all
other potentially hazardous products must also do the same, without it getting proved of its
harms.

THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 3
QUESTION 2-
At the very end of the film, Nick claims, “Michael Jordan plays ball, Charles Manson kills
people, and I talk; everyone’s got a talent.” Is there something morally or politically dubious
about Nick’s claim and how he advocates for the interests of the smoking industry? Why or
why not?
ANSWER 2-
Stories like, the film “thank you for smoking” is a part of the structural dark comedies
and usually such movies roll around serious topics. Nick Naylor’s character is based on the
rhetoric values carried by him. Nick is a self driven, confident and a witty personality. One
can easily find the four main pillars of rhetoric i.e., pathos, kayos, ethos and logos in the
character. Such values not just develop with some degree or learning but are an example of
personal talent, driven with brains and confidence (Patterson & Nishikawa, 2002).
There is nothing dubious about the claims given by the character as the interests he
places of the smoking industry are not a result of his personal knowledge. All the comments
given by him in favour of smoking industry do not directly point on the fact that “smoking is
good for health”. The character works with the theory of rhetoric fallacies that can be easily
found out in the sequence (Finger, 2018).
All the moral and political comments made by nick are defending the idea with
controversial evidences, where it becomes difficult to find out what he actually believes in.

THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 4
QUESTION 3-
To what degree does the film’s fictional account of Nick Naylor provide an accurate portrayal
of lobbying in America? In what ways does it provide an inaccurate picture of lobbying and
lobbyists?
ANSWER 3-
The film character “nick Naylor”, promotes the idea of rhetoric competency. At all
the points, the job s efficiently done by the character through his disguising of fallacies as
legitimate and direct arguments. Also, the character does not hold specific degrees or
education in the lines being a professional lobbyist. This pictureisation might move the
identity of being a professional in negative terms. this might promote talent more than the
hard work done by people in universities for becoming an efficient lobbyist, but the character
here promotes the idea of proper education by showing his skills I the committee. The
awareness of all the studies made by the institutions taken by him in his arguments, give a
positive outlay of lobbying in America (Bierowski, 2019).
Being a country, where rhetoric takes a lot of power and admiration, the film’s
portrayal of lobbying and lobbyists took a good turn. Although, at various points, the
character had to hide his fallacious statements by wit and argument skills, which somehow
depicts a negative image of lobbyist’s in America.
The only idea that lacks in “good image” portraying of lobbying is when the character
tries to disguise the wrong statements with good arguments and achieve in a good support
from the audience and committee members.

THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 5
QUESTION 4-
What could viewers learn from watching the film about interest group politics? How does the
film illustrate the general themes raised in this course?
ANSWER 4-
Interest group politics is also known as pressure groups where individuals, properly
coordinated, attempt to influence the public in their favour. The themes rose in the film and
specifically by the character “Nick Naylor” are strong examples of the interest group politics
(Bierowski, 2019).
The character was pictures with a talent of his rhetoric skills, through which he is able
to influence the committees, public in the favour of some controversial topics which make up
a serious issue amongst the audience.
The way nick Naylor made a sound argument which might have included some
logical fallacies but were able to achieve audience support by focussing on the idea of
personal choice and liberty. He strongly focussed on the education provided by the families
to the members of choosing what’s right or not for them gathered an emotional outlook of the
people.
This movie touched most of the standards which are part of interest group politics.
 Knowing and teaching the core of the issue
 Proper study of background for a good argument
 Influencing public with right arguments, not by denying with baseless comments
 Addressing with wit and confidence
 Good rhetoric skills
 Leaving judgement to the public.

THANKYOU FOR SMOKING 6
REFERENCES
Bierowski, M. (2019). Thank You for Smoking – Thoughts and Analysis. Retrieved from
https://sites.psu.edu/mjbrcl008blog/2012/10/03/thank-you-for-smoking/
Finger, L. (2018). Interest Group Influence and the Two Faces of Power. American Politics
Research, 1532673X1878672. doi: 10.1177/1532673x18786723
Patterson, D., & Nishikawa, M. (2002). Political Interest or Interest in Politics?. Women &
Politics, 24(2), 1-34. doi: 10.1300/j014v24n02_01
Thank you for laughing. (2019). Retrieved from
http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho3584z6.htm
Thank You for Smoking (2005) - IMDb. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/