Wag the Dog very blatantly brings up an ethical dilemma and the argument of whether or not there is due cause for actions taken. In the film, Conrad Brean and Winifred Ames enlist the help of Hollywood producer Stanley Motss to create a news-worthy event to draw attention away from the President’s sexual misconduct allegations—a war. The issue comes from the ethical and legal implications of falsely creating and reporting material in regards to an imagined war. The side of the Brean, Ames, and Motss, who are working under the jurisdiction of the President, would argue that it was necessary to distract from the libelous statements being broadcasted about a Firefly and her allegations of the President sexually assaulting her. Libel is considered a statement that is “false” and “defamatory” (Class Notes, 5.2 Libel). The actions they are taking could thus be justified as an appropriate protection for the President. However, as the President is a part of a government body, he cannot be libeled (Class Notes, 5.2 Libel), and thus the justification of protections is voided. In addition, the creating of a false war to protect the reputation of a president pulls upon issues revolving around the ethical conduct of those reporting the news and the legality of falsely implying war when clearly there is no war being fought. According to the Social Responsibility Theory, the media functions to “Provide truthful, comprehensive, intelligent account of day’s events that gives context to meaning (Class Notes, 5.1 Economics of Ethics).” In addition, the SPJ Code of Ethics preaches that reporters “seek truth and report it (Class Notes, 4.1 Seeking the Truth: Core Ethics in Reporting)” and to “Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information (SPJ Code of Ethics).” In this light, Brean, Ames, and Motss, who are involved with creating the wildfire media of the “war against Albania” and the existence of “Good Old Shoe,” intentionally distorted reality and created a situation that had never happened, which clearly violates media’s ethical guidelines. Fabricating and broadcasting an imagined war, in addition to violating ethical guidelines, also brings up issues of legality—is it legal to frighten the American public with news of a false war? According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schneck v. United States “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (Wikipedia).” The question is, then, whether it was protected under the constitution for Brean, Ames, and Motss to feed fear-inducing information to the media, as well as creating a false persona for the nation to attach themselves to. At-risk speech, which can often be denied protections of the First Amendment as determined by the Supreme Court (Class Notes, 2.1 The First Amendment: Five Freedoms), is often labeled as “words immediately jeopardizing national security (Class Notes, 3.1 First Amendment Challenges). In this case, then, as the pretend war brought counter actions by Albania and could have resulted in an actual attack on the United States, the fabricated news of war as created by Brean, Ames, and Motss could very well be considered illegal and punished under federal law.
In my opinion, their reaction to the allegations of sexual misconduct against the President was ethically flawed and an overall horrible decision. By creating this fake war and tacking it onto the name of the President, it not only threatens the security of the general population of America, but also could turn sour if it was discovered to be false. In this way, their plan only perpetuated the bad tune the President was receiving by feeding lies to the American public. I would have advised the President to face the bad rap, and to provide solace through launching an investigation into the allegations, thus clearing his name (if he were innocent) and not (possibly) further tarnishing his reputation.
Finally, what I believe Wag the Dog illustrates is the distortion and manipulation that is applied by the media daily, whether they are aware of it or not. The impact I think this makes on journalism, in turn, is that it is essentially suggesting that, as long as you have your ass covered, it is perfectly alright to modify, manipulate, or distort the news which you are providing to your listeners. In turn, it instills the feeling that the media cannot be trusted as a source of reliable, accurate information. The backlash I see the media receiving for the actions seen in Wag the Dog is that they will be less trusted and questioned based on their actions–is the media truthful, or is it all a fabrication?