Thank You for Smoking

 Thank You for Smoking

In Thank You for Smoking, the worlds of advertising, PR, and persuasion are explored in an unsettling and clever way. Nick Naylor's movie explores how people can be legal and do ethically questionable things. Legality isn't always aligned with morality in industries that harm public health. Because of my studies in communications and interest in marketing, I think more critically about public opinion.  

Naylor defends and promotes cigarettes despite overwhelming scientific evidence that they're bad. There's no evil in him, only skill, confidence, and even likeability. Make his position seem reasonable by rephrasing arguments, avoiding direct answers, and shifting focus. Sometimes public relations isn't about proving something's good, it's about creating doubt and controlling the narrative. He's good at communicating, but I couldn't do it. No matter how much money you make, you can't justify promoting a product that's directly linked to cancer, addiction, and other serious health problems. 

There's even more complexity when it comes to vaping. Vaping has always scared me way more than regular cigarettes. While tobacco is clearly dangerous in the movie, newer products are marketed as "safer alternatives." Research shows they're not as safe as traditional cigarettes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, young people use e-cigarettes a lot. It's ethically questionable to advertise to young people. No matter how safe and legal the product is, there's still a high risk of addiction. I'd still feel uncomfortable there. 

The film also discusses removing smoke from old movies. There has been talk about editing classic movies to eliminate smoking scenes. It's an excellent idea, but I oppose it. Altering a film risks erasing an important cultural and historical context. By removing those elements, the work would lose its authenticity. Instead of changing the original content, add disclaimers or educational messages that tell viewers about smoking risks. 

There are also ethical questions about the journalist's role in the movie. In her book, she exposes how tobacco companies hide harmful effects. Powerful industries need investigative journalism to be held accountable. In order to get information, she formed a personal relationship with Nick. The end justifies the means is a common dilemma in journalism. Although she reveals important truths, her reporting is deceptive. 

There's also a broader discussion about regulating vice advertising, including products like tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and gambling. What if these products are proven to be harmful? 

Why not ban their advertising? To a certain extent, the First Amendment protects commercial speech. Despite government restrictions, a complete ban would probably be difficult to enforce. Nonetheless, strict regulations seem reasonable, especially when it comes to vulnerable populations. Despite being legal, advertising can still harm society. 

Marijuana ads add another layer of complexity. Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, but many states have legalized it. Digital media makes it even harder to enforce ads across state lines. The internet's nature shouldn't be punished, but it does highlight the need for clearer federal guidelines. There's no consistency in legal standards, so consumers have to navigate conflicting laws. 

It's hard to tell the difference between legal and ethical behavior in advertising and PR. This film challenges viewers to think critically about persuasion. It's not just about following the law; professionals have to think about the broader impact of what they do. The choices we make as communicators can have long-lasting effects, even if they're legal. 

     The Future of My Work in the Age of AI

PBS' Age of AI documentary The Future of Work felt more like a warning shot across the bow of every college syllabus in America when I watched it.  It's reorganizing entire industries by automating repetitive parts and breaking jobs into tasks. That includes social media and marketing. That includes me. 

As a student at High Point majoring in social media, I imagined a future career based on creativity. My dream was to brainstorm campaigns for companies, create brand personalities, design visuals, write captions that connect, and turn storytelling into a career. AI doesn't take that vision, but it does change it. 

Now your chatbot can make captions, suggest hashtags, edit videos, design graphics, analyze engagement data, and even build full campaigns in seconds. That's both thrilling and unsettling. Ai will shrink the number of entry level job opportunities post grad. 

But here's an interesting part. AI is good at production. I don't think it's good at actual perspective. It can create patterns, but it can't live experiences. It can process data, but it doesn't understand a business's authentic culture. 

The biggest question for me is how AI affected my future when I began HPU. I wanted to work in sports marketing, social media, and brand storytelling. That dream still stands, but the skillset has expanded. I need to become someone who can use AI as a tool without dependency on it. I need to build a personal brand rooted in my personal creativity.   

For my final project, I want to explore what an AI ready, future proof social media professional looks like. What skills actually matter? What tasks will disappear?  And most importantly, how do we stay creative in a world where machines generate infinite content? 

AI is not the end of my field. It is the beginning of a new version with helpful tools along the way. Work's future is not between humans versus machines. It is a human plus machine. The question is whether we are prepared to lead that partnership. 

 

Online Privacy

Online Privacy

It may seem like when you're in the comfort of your own home and scrolling in your free time after your day over, that's when your private life starts. Wrong. If your cellphones are on you, the government knows your every step. Most people don't understand how much data the government takes from us. Have you ever  noticed that when you're talking about something like a new microwave or a new pair of sneakers that you'll suddenly start getting added to them on social media, yea scary, and it's not just a coincidence.

In class we watched two eye opening TedTalks about online privacy. Emails go through many layers before reaching the receiver of the email. You're not the first person to read it even if it's nothing suspicious. The government claims it's so they will have it in case they need information if you become a criminal, but if it's not criminal behavior, it just seems like a huge invasion of privacy. 

As a social media student who frequently puts their life on the internet, I understand that my digital footprint will be monitored by future employers and that seems competently rational and smart by a company to do a background check. But the government seeing everything I have ever sent to my family seems inhumane and scary. 

I think the government shouldn't be able to watch over our every move unless there's a reason prompted to it. There should be privacy restrictions on what they can or can't see. Yes, they don't usually leak inappropriate information for no good reason, but it's just the fact that they could, and you'd have no idea who or why. 

                                                                                                  Facebook is the biggest social media platform for ads. When you're talking to your friends about how much you miss your dog then suddenly you get ads for dog toys or looking up a new jacket they for three days straight you get ads for jackets. This is the government giving access to companies what your interests are. Some people like this and it works well for businesses to reach their target audiences. 

Overall, we need to learn to be cautious about what we put out for the world to see on the internet. It can be a scary place and follow you forever if you aren't responsible.