Rhetoric in Thank You For Smoking

In Jason Reitman’s film, Thank You For Smoking, Aaron Eckhardt plays the character of Nick Naylor who is a spokesperson for “Big Tobacco” or more specifically a tobacco company named Winston-Salem. He describes his job characteristics in the film as an attempt to create a positive image within the media of “Big Tobacco” in the face of so many dissenting claims. The name given to this line of work is lobbying.

In this opening scene of the film, Nick Naylor is answering questions and putting forth arguments while being interviewed on a television panel. The odds are always overwhelmingly against him because of the immoral consequences that result from a company that he represents. The panel that he is on consists of the president of Mothers Against Smoking, the chairwoman of The Lung Association, the top aide of Health and Human Services, and a young kid diagnosed with cancer. This creates a comical effect in the film and highlights the ever surmounting odds that Nick Naylor has to fight or “argue” against. Now. The fact that Mr. Naylor is working for a company’s interests and that these interests revolve around public opinion creates a negative impact on the rhetoric of his “argument”.  The rhetoric that results from this is based on public reception rather than the sake of an actual argument, which is to seek truth. Naylor manages to manipulate the public perception on him from spitting at the sight of him with booing echoing in the background to applause and praise. In this main excerpt from the clip, it shows how this is accomplished.

Naylor - how on earth would Big Tobacco profit off of the loss of this young man? 
            Now, I hate to think in such callous terms, 
            but, if anything, we'd be losing a customer. 
            It's not only our hope, it's in our best interest 
            to keep Robin alive and smoking. 

Ron Goodes - That's ludicrous. - 

Naylor - Let me tell you something, 

            Joan, and please, let me share something 
            with the fine, concerned people in the audience today. 
            The Ron Goodes of this world... 
            want the Robin Willigers to die. 
            You know why? 
            So that their budgets will go up. 
            This is nothing less than trafficking in human misery, 
            and you, sir, ought to be ashamed of yourself. 

            I ought to be ashamed of myself? 
            As a matter of fact, we're about to launch... 
            a $50 million campaign aimed at persuading kids not to smoke. 

            Because I think that we can all agree that there is nothing more important 
            than America's children.

This response from Nick Naylor is filled with contradiction and manipulation. The actual argument that is suggested is completely overlooked and is replaced by condemning his opposition on the panel. Naylor manages to create a contrast of him and the “Top Aide” figure. Naylor portrays himself as a good figure that contributes “50 million dollars” to teenage smoking prevention while the top aide is portrayed as a “trafficker of human misery”. Naylor evades the truth by creating an intense appeal to his ethos. The audience narrowly sees Naylor and his character and fails to see the lack of a debate. The only way to combat being easily led on by arguments such as Naylor’s, is to be aware of the components of rhetoric. If the audience of this television show ever took a LA101H class their acceptance of the argument may not have been achieved.