The Insider: Lowell Bergman's Career Development

When we think of the hit movie The Insider, Lowell Bergman is a man who stands for many things. Lowell Bergman was played by Al Pacino, who does an excellent job portraying the emotional state of Lowell during the big tobacco fiasco. Over the next couple of pages I hope to show how Lowell Bergman’s conscience leads him as he makes some difficult decisions. I also hope to highlight how compromise plays an important part in Lowell Bergman’s decision-making as well. And in doing so, I hope to give a clearer picture as to why Lowell Bergman made some of the choices he decided to make.

Lowell Bergman made the choice to not stand by as CBS attempted to kill the Jeffrey Wigand story because of his conscience. In the Television Quarterly, Dan Rather (1994) wrote about the importance of making some noise when something goes against your journalistic conscience. Rather (1994) goes onto warn that “silence is a killer”. In his interview with Harry Kreisler, Bergman talks about the promise he made to himself when he got into network news, that being he wouldn’t be associated with something personally he did not agree with. When CBS executives asked him to basically abandon Wigand and cut off all contact with him, there was a sense of moral injustice to Bergman behind this decision. His conscience, or the moral sense of right and wrong, caused him to contact his friends in the industry and make a strong attempt to not only get the “Big Tobacco Story” out, but also the story of what was happening behind the scenes at CBS. Abandoning his conscience would have allowed him to keep his high-paying career at CBS for years to come and all the perks that come with it. Rather, he stuck with his conscience and remembered the promise he made to himself back in 1978, and this was the difference in getting Jeffrey Wigand’s story out and the story of how decisions are made at CBS.

Compromise also plays an important role in Lowell Bergman’s decision making. Lowell Bergman’s decision to initially join 60 Minutes was one based on compromise. In his interview with Harry Kriesler, Bergman talks about where although 60 minutes would allow for him to reach a large audience, he also knew there would be stories he would not be able to run because of how things work at the big networks. This is in line with what Howard Gardner (2002) reported in his findings about how journalists felt about their field, as most felt that the control of journalism had passed from professionals to corporate executives. Still, Bergman was able to handle the compromise as he spent a number of years at the network and was able to produce some excellent stories that reached a very large audience.

One compromise he could not navigate was that of sacrificing his source Jeffrey Wigand. He decided to protect his source and this affected his relationship with those he worked with at CBS. In the interview with Harry Kriesler, Bergman highlights how his decision to protect Wigand changed his relationship with CBS. He went from following the rules, not talking to people on the outside, to doing just that as he felt his colleagues and the company abandoned the last line of standards he thought they would keep. His unwillingness to compromise his source leads him to the realization that CBS is asking him to be somebody that he doesn’t want to be. The mirror test, something Gardner (2002) sees as important when one is striving to be a good worker, seems to be in play here. Bergman seems to take a close objective look at the person he is and the person he wishes to be when deciding what to do with regards to protecting Wigand or protecting his career at CBS.

In conclusion, Lowell Bergman made the decision to not side with CBS as they attempted to mute Jeffrey Wigand and the big tobacco story. His conscience played a big part in this decision as well as his decision to not compromise Jeffrey Wigand and his story. Lowell Bergman’s decision to join 60 Minutes was also one based on compromise, as it gave him the chance to reach a large audience at the expense of some journalistic freedom.