Wag the Dog, An Ethical Nightmare

Wag the Dog

An insight into the importance of Ethics in Communications

 Rebecca Smith

The movie selected was Wag the Dog. The film begins with the president’s communication/crisis team meeting to discuss a recent scandal about the president. The president was being accused of making sexual advances to an underage girl right before the election, 11 days to be exact. The man in charge Ames, comes up with an idea to fake a war in Albania, mainly because no one knows much about Albina. To help sell the idea they reach out to a ‘spin doctor’ Conrad Brean. Brean agrees to do for the ‘fun’ of it and takes overbuilding the narrative of war. Brean builds his own team where they plan to use a casted girl as a poor orphan running away with a kitten, and faking an old theme song for the war. They ‘leak’ to the press the rumors about the war, and eventually, with the footage of the orphan, the media solo focus is on the war. Until the CIA who knows this is all, a hoax reports the war ended in a draw. They do this to help the running rival to the president.

The media focuses back on the scandal leaving the team forced to come up with something else. As a last saving grace Motss (a team member) invents a war hero who was left behind in Albina, they use an actual soldier to build a POW narrative. This works as their campaign ‘thrown away like an old pair of shoes.’ takes off. The team even goes as far as to fake the reasons behind his later death (he tried to rape a girl) and give him an honorable funeral. The president is re-elected; however Motss becomes angry that all the credit is being given to the president’s running campaign instead of himself. He then threatens to reveal his part in the whole hoax, ending with him being assassinated to keep the truth from coming out.

There is so much that needs to be unpacked. To begin with, first and foremost, everything done in this movie was insanely morally screwed and unethical. Not once in the film did any of the president’s team or even the Hollywood team ask whether or not the allegations of the scandal were true. Instead, they all focused on how they can save the president’s reputation. The truth didn’t matter at all in this case. The goal was, “how do we minimize the damage and if possible? How do we make it go away for now?”. In defense of the characters, though, it’s not their job to care about the truth the way a journalist would. They aren’t ethically bound like a journalist, but to one person to whom they work for specifically to maintain an image above the norm. On a moral scale, the group operates mainly on a ‘custom’ level. In moral progress, there are three levels, custom is the 2nd tier. 

 Custom moral operates on cultural (group/societal) accordance. An example of custom morals is in West individual success is very important, but in places in the East like Australia and Japan, a group’s success is more important. Australia calls this “the field of poppies,” in a field of poppies, if one flower is taller than the rest, it will be cut down to be on the same level as the others. Unlike the first moral tier instinct, the groups aren’t acting on primal needs. The group is rather addressing conforming to societal standards. Also, the group does not operate on a conscious level, aka the third-tier because they don’t ask themselves whether or not what they’re doing is right or wrong. In this case, the custom morals come from the goals that the team comprised of the president’s aides and the spin team. The team’s goal is to help the president out of the negative spotlight. This isn’t so much the group’s individual needs as it is the group serving another individual’s needs, which is to be viewed positively in order to be re-elected. Versus the CIA, who are in an alliance with the running rival to the president, hinder the efforts of the president’s team. 

 If anything, they follow the teleological ethical theory, in which their actions are motivated in doing the most good for the president’s chances of re-election. Teleological theory is that when a person does a specific action because they believe the consequences will bring the most good. Altruist people will make the choice that will bring the most happiness, even if it means they benefit the least. Meanwhile, egotistical people will pick the decision that will bring the most good to themselves or their needs. This may also result in bringing good/happiness to others but that isn’t the deal break in the choice. The team behave in an egotistical manner of thinking, they do whatever they have to get the president re-elected. They don’t dwell on the fact that they’re possibly helping a child predatory get re-elected. That’s not important; they want to keep their jobs and good standing with the president. 

Even when Motss threatens to come forward with the truth, his motivation was that he wanted recognition. He ultimately was the reason behind the president being re-elected, but he was never going to get the glory of the credit. It was unsurprising that someone out of the group wasn’t going to be completely satisfied. In this case it was Motss who displays the danger and complexity of motivating those based on ego. As easily as one’s ego can be stroked, another can be easily insulted. Although the team’s efforts were practical, they should not be replicated. The biggest issue of this movie and the recurring theme was that the team never asked themselves should they be doing this, instead of how they would do it. If anything they’ve done is create an even bigger scandal. If it were to come to light, it would ruin all of their careers, if not worse.