Movie Review: Thank You for Smoking

 

I recently watched the film "Thank You for Smoking" and pondered on the question: "could I actually do Nick Naylor's job?"

In all honesty, I think I have the skill set to do what Nick Naylor did. I just don't think I'd have his same will. It's one thing to beat around the bush in a meeting; it's another to passionately stand in front of cameras and try to frame cigarettes in a positive light. At the end of the day, money means nothing if you can't go to sleep on good terms with yourself.

The letter Don wrote to the Times.

The whole question reminds me of an episode of Mad Men called "Blowing Smoke," where Don Draper takes out a full-page ad in The New York Times titled "Why I'm Quitting Tobacco." The ad isn't really about quitting smoking, it's about Don's job, and what he's really been doing for the last twenty-five years. He admits, in so many words, that everyone in the industry already knows what he's been doing: peddling a product for which good work is irrelevant, because people can't stop themselves from buying it. His job has been convincing people to slowly kill themselves. The kicker comes earlier in the same episode, when Don runs into an old flame who's now a heroin addict, and he sees in real time that no amount of clever advertising ever actually mattered. Addicts buy regardless. The product was always going to sell itself.

Don doesn't actually quit smoking by the end, and the letter is at least partly self-serving, but the point still lands for me. So no, I don't think I could do Naylor's job for any salary. I wouldn't feel morally adequate promoting cancer in a stick.

This led me down a rabbit hole of thought, and again, I asked myself another question: "Should the government just outlaw all advertising for harmful products like cigarettes?"

My answer is absolutely not.

First, the government has already killed most of the conventional means of advertising for cigarettes. Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act in 1970, banning cigarette ads on radio and television starting in January 1971. Whatever's left of cigarette advertising lives in print, point-of-sale, and packaging, and even those channels have been progressively restricted. The on ramp for "vice" advertising in this country is already pretty thoroughly paved over.

Second, I was in 8th grade when vaping, specifically the JUUL brand, became a national panic and was heavily restricted. Did that stop kids from vaping? Not even close. I'd argue it made the problem worse. The 2020 FDA flavor restriction only applied to cartridge-based devices like JUUL, which created a massive loophole for disposable vapes. Within a couple of years, disposables like Puff Bar, Elf Bar, and Geek Bars were everywhere; cheaper, easier to hide, and ironically more accessible to minors than the product the FDA had just gone after. Believe me, I was one of them. Restricting JUUL didn't kill teen vaping. It just rebranded it.

Disposable vape products

Third, and this is the part I think most people don't sit with long enough, the same argument that says "ban vice advertising because it's bad for our health" can be turned on basically every consumer category in America. If the principle is "the government should ban the advertisement of anything that's bad for our health," here's a short list of products that would have to go: processed foods and fast-food restaurants, all alcohol, any technology with a screen, pharmaceutical drugs, junk food and candy, and basically anything wrapped in plastic. Once you accept that government can outlaw advertising for products that harm people, you've handed it a mandate it will keep using, and the next product on the list won't be the one you wanted to ban.

I do think harmful products should have meaningful restrictions on how they're marketed, especially when those products clearly target minors. But I'd rather see that principle applied honestly across the board than picked off product by product when the politics happen to line up. As far as legal versus ethical considerations go, this is the rare case where they push in the same direction for me. The First Amendment doesn't have a "vice" exception built into it, and I'm not sure I want to be the one to invent one.

Beyond Algorithms: The Human Heart of Journalism

 

The professional landscape us journalism students are preparing to enter is being reshaped by AI right in front of our eyes. According to research by the United Nations, AI can process vast volumes of data, from official documents to social media, far faster than any traditional methods, freeing journalists to focus on in-depth investigation and storytelling.

Major news organizations have already been implementing AI. Outlets like the Associated Press, Reuters, and Forbes have been using AI to generate reports about finance and sports for years. More recently, newsrooms are experimenting with AI for tasks ranging from grammar editing to headline writing.

Despite AI's capabilities, human journalists remain indispensable in producing quality news. A 2025 Reuters Institute survey found that most people think AI will make news cheaper to produce, but much less trustworthy. Audiences felt more comfortable with AI handling some of the back-end tasks like editing, spelling, and grammar, but strongly disapproved of using it to create content. 

There are numerous questions with AI's credibility for news. AI can't conduct deep investigative work that uncovers corruption or holds power accountable; it lacks the intuition to follow leads, cultivate confidential sources, and ask probing questions. Additionally, AI systems can perpetuate biases present in their training data.

The employment picture is somewhat blurry. The U.N. says that automation could potentially replace reporters, designer, editors and distribution staff. "With fewer journalists on the ground, we risk losing investigative reporting, local news coverage, and the rich storytelling that defines journalism." The key will be adapting to work alongside AI rather than competing against it.

While AI threatens many industries' jobs, I truly believe no matter how advanced it becomes, human journalists can never be replaced. Fundamentally, journalism is about holding power accountable and serving democracy; roles that demand human judgement, courage, and moral responsibility. The First Amendment protects the freedom of press because a free society depends on the people who can challenge authority, expose wrongdoing, and speak truth even when its unpopular or dangerous. 

 

Clicks to Consequences: Why Your Data Matters

Online privacy doesn't feel like much of a concern until you truly realize just how much of your life is silently being logged. In this TED Talk, data wasn't just browser cookies, it was an "electronic tattoo," as Juan Enriquez described it: a lasting record of what you post, click, buy, and share. That permanence can follow you into future jobs, relationships, and finances. This data is a kind of immortality you didn't choose.

The type of data being collected ranges widely from your online habits to the locations you visit. If your location data is constantly collected, it can reveal patterns like where you worship, which meetings you attend, clinics you visit, and who you spend your time with. On her TED Talk, Catherine Crump emphasized how location data can build a detailed story of someone over time, often without the person realizing it. When data is sold elsewhere, it can be stitched together by third parties (like data brokers) to predict your behavior, score your "risk," and influence decisions that affect your life. The data market has become invaluable, mainly for targeted advertising, but doesn't stop there. For example, details from your browsing history and online behavior can shape how you're marketed to, what offers you see, and potentially how companies evaluate you for things like financial loans or healthcare coverage.

It's quite evident that we need better laws and real enforcement around how data is collected and what happens after it's collected. There needs to be new laws proposed that would make the selling or transferring of personal data to undisclosed third parties illegal; especially sensitive data like location, health information, and communications data. Features like privacy-invasion features, like background microphone access or always-on tracking unrelated to an apps core purpose, should be heavily regulated or straight up banned. 

There are things we can do to protect ourselves in the meantime. We need to treat our privacy like basic hygiene: review app permissions (especially location and microphone), turn off "always" location access (unless the app requires it to run), delete apps you don't trust or use, and be selective about what you post. If the last five years have taught us anything, it's that an online past is hard to erase. While these individual choices may not fix system overnight, they will reduce our exposure as we push for stronger regulation of data resale and surveillance. 

 

 

My (Current) Top 5 News Sources

In the ever-changing world of technology and media, I'd argue, that today it is harder to find a reliable news source than it is to find love (joking of course, but not really). That being said, we live in a unique era where almost everybody can access a piece of news/media without buying a paper or owning a television. It's important to note that while news may be much more accessible today, it certainly is not as reliable as it once might've been. Below, I'll be listing my top five sources of news. This isn't a list about specific news channels, but rather sources/platforms that I use to both watch and discuss news.

Instagram

What started as a social media app aimed at a younger audience, has emerged into arguably the top platform of news for many Americans. Every MSM network has an account that they post their news to, like they would on TV, but with less of the commentary. It's also been a hotspot for less mainstream sources that report on the news that the MSM does not. One thing I love about Instagram is the comments. Yes, they're humorous most of the time, but reading through them also helps one understand what the actual public is feeling towards a certain issue, and not what the MSM is telling you "how people feel." As with any platform, misinformation also runs rampant and it's still of upmost importance to verify the sources on your own.

Friends & Family

While not necessarily a source you totally want to rely on getting your news from, friends and family offer a great way to discuss current events. If you have a family like mine, very even split when it comes to politics, then discussing news with them is like watching a show on a news broadcast. While it can get feisty sometimes, I've always found it as an amazing environment to not only debate ideas/opinions but also reflect on them. When you come to these discussions with an open mind, you're able to mentally explore ideas that maybe you never thought of before. I've had lots of changing views over the years that I credit to these types of discussions. 

Podcasts

Arguably the top source of news today for many people, podcasts have taken over what MSM once was. Whether it's specifically on politics, or science, or any subset of topics, the main draw of podcasts is ultimately to hear new things. Shows like Joe Rogan's or Tucker Carlson's, while obviously more right leaning, have on a wide variety of guests from actors to scientists, to politicians. Podcasts have the ability to convey the news that MSM doesn't focus on; they're not only limited to politics like much of MSM, but open to other topics like art, science, etc. Like with friends and family, these shows, and depending on the guest, offer you a chance to reflect on what their saying, that maybe you've never thought of before. 

Mainstream Media (MSM)

There's a lot of problems with MSM right now. All the major shows are openly biased towards one political party and majority of the news they produce are reported in heavily biased tones. However, even without an unbiased news station, you can still find the middle ground by utilizing both sides of the aisle. When I watch MSM I like to hear one sides spin on the story (let's say Fox), then switch over to the other sides reporting of it (let's say CNN). While both seem to report on the extremes of each piece of news, one can independently reflect on both views and reach their own conclusions (rather than letting the media do it for you). I believe this is the only way to responsibly consume news from the MSM.

Microsoft News (MSN)

While not necessarily my main sources of news, MSN is still the go to on my computer. Anytime I open a tab MSN is right there with 10+ articles, all within the last day or two, ready for me to read. While most of the articles are pulled from MSM, they have a comment feature for the articles that most of the news websites don't have. It allows me to easily access and catch up on the news when I don't have access to a phone. I mostly use MSN during class or when taking study breaks. I think it's a great way to catch up the latest news, as long as you're aware of the biases before you read.

The 2nd Value of Free Expression: Participation in Self-Government

Alexander Meiklejohn's core claim in Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government is: "Citizens will not make wise and informed choices in elections if candidates and proponents of certain policies are restricted in their ability to communicate positions. We want an informed electorate involved in debate." To expand on that point, if citizens are expected to govern themselves, they must be able to hear ALL relevant ideas, including ones that make people uncomfortable. The point of the First Amendment, specifically on this topic, is to protect speech because democracy depends on public judgment formed through discourse and open debate. This is why restrictions on political communication aimed at candidates, media, and citizens, are so corrosive. If the public is unable to access discourse surrounding arguments and counterarguments, elections become less like freedom and more like controlled choice. Meiklejohn frames this danger as civic unfitness, famously quoting "To be afraid of ideas, any idea, is to be unfit for self-government." 

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard allegations that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to suppress conservative viewpoints and censor "misinformation" regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election; the case is titled Murthy v. Missouri. The court ultimately ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue broad injunctive relief. Still, the case revealed how easily government requests and flagging mix into a public square that is privately owned but publicly steered. Though the court didn't fully conclude whether the government illegally censored speech, the case did reveal real risks in how modern speech works. Though most social media are privately owned, the government can still shape what gets removed or suppressed through behind-the-scenes pressure.

And this isn't just a hypothetical... it's reality. In August 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that senior officials in the Biden administration had repeatedly pressured Meta in 2021 to censor humor, satire, and certain COVID-19 content. According to Reuters, in July 2021, President Biden states social media platforms like Meta "are killing people" for allowing "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines to be posted. Following the backlash, the White House said, "the administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety when confronted with a deadly pandemic." 

Now whether such claims about masks, social distancing, and the vaccines being ineffective are still up for debate amongst the public, it doesn't take away from the fact that the government and social media companies were silencing anyone that questioned their stance. Take Robert Malone for example, the acclaimed creator of the mRNA vaccine. While many people questioned the COVID vaccine because of the government's aggressive and unconstitutional way of forcing the vaccine onto the population, Malone also questioned its efficacy and safety. Malone stated that, "He's concerned that the proper, usual precautions haven't' been taken with the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 and doesn't think people should be required to take them." Malone's statement would seem reasonable to most people, given that he was right about precautions for mRNA vaccine testing being ignored, but his questioning of the vaccine led to a MSM smear campaign. Don't believe me? Search Robert Malone on Google and read out some of the top headlines about him.

With the topic of misinformation being so relevant in today's environment, governments from all over the world, including the U.S, are making it their job to "combat misinformation" through means of censorship and even incarceration. If you want to see what "managed information" evolves into, lets highlight some governments that treat political speech as threat rather than a necessity:

 

- China: Freedom House describes China as having the WORST conditions for internet freedom, with users facing "severe legal and extralegal repercussions" for ordinary online activity, including sharing news, discussing religion, communicating with people abroad, or amplifying information the government dislikes.

- Russia: Since invading Ukraine, Russia has dramatically tightened their information control. Reporters Without Borders notes that independent media have been banned, blocked, or branded "foreign agents." Similar to China, anti-government comments or posts can also lead to jail time or much harsher consequences. 

These regimes illustrate the endgame of limiting political communication. Elections (if they exist) lose meaning because voters cannot compare claims, investigate wrongdoing, or organize political opposition. 

Meiklejohn's argument isn't that every statement is true or every speaker is of good faith. It's that the cure for bad arguments in a democracy is more contestation, not quieter citizens. When candidates, journalists, and ordinary people are restricted, especially through government influence over media, the voters are less informed, less confident, and less capable of self-government. If we genuinely want an informed citizens involved in debate, then the ethical and constitutional burden should be on those who try to restrict free speech and justify it as combatting "misinformation and hate speech." In a functioning democracy, the public doesn't need a moderator, it needs the truth-seeking spirit of open debate.