How Might The Basic Story Have Been Slanted More Toward The Company With Equivalent Dramatic Effect?
1. Did you come away from the movie convinced that the company had done wrong and that Masry and Erin had performed a beneficial service? If so, why did you reach those conclusions?
I definitely came out from the movie convinced that the company had done wrong. That’s one of those many cases where big corporations conscientiously do something unethical. They know that what they are doing it will harm people, yet they don’t care about it because all they care about is their personal economic interest. For Ed Masry, that job was a pro-bono case, meaning no lawyer fees, thus it was a service to the community. The case called Erin’s interest from the moment she realized there was something wrong with the case. Therefore, she sympathized with the people involved in the case and wanted to get to the root of the problem. She just wanted to work for a salary and never thought of making money out of it; however, she wanted the 633 …show more content…
How might the basic story have been slanted more toward the company with equivalent dramatic effect?
Although the employees’ compromise with the company’s unethical behavior could be dramatic, the story wouldn’t have been as dramatic as it was because of the Hinkley’s resident’s sickness and suffering.
3. Do the filmmakers have any obligation to give the company’s side of the story?
No, the filmmakers have no obligation to give the company’s side of the story because it is enough with the fact that a $28 billion corporation knowingly contaminated the water supply with the Chrome 6 Hexavalent chromium in the water plant compressor but lied about it saying that it was the Chromium 3 and also tried to cover up their act by buying the properties.
4. What is the company’s side?
The company’s side is simply an unethical and corrupt corporation that doesn’t care about the health of people and try to resolve the problem with little money as a compensation for their health issues.
5. Why do you think the company’s employees did what they
I definitely came out from the movie convinced that the company had done wrong. That’s one of those many cases where big corporations conscientiously do something unethical. They know that what they are doing it will harm people, yet they don’t care about it because all they care about is their personal economic interest. For Ed Masry, that job was a pro-bono case, meaning no lawyer fees, thus it was a service to the community. The case called Erin’s interest from the moment she realized there was something wrong with the case. Therefore, she sympathized with the people involved in the case and wanted to get to the root of the problem. She just wanted to work for a salary and never thought of making money out of it; however, she wanted the 633 …show more content…
How might the basic story have been slanted more toward the company with equivalent dramatic effect?
Although the employees’ compromise with the company’s unethical behavior could be dramatic, the story wouldn’t have been as dramatic as it was because of the Hinkley’s resident’s sickness and suffering.
3. Do the filmmakers have any obligation to give the company’s side of the story?
No, the filmmakers have no obligation to give the company’s side of the story because it is enough with the fact that a $28 billion corporation knowingly contaminated the water supply with the Chrome 6 Hexavalent chromium in the water plant compressor but lied about it saying that it was the Chromium 3 and also tried to cover up their act by buying the properties.
4. What is the company’s side?
The company’s side is simply an unethical and corrupt corporation that doesn’t care about the health of people and try to resolve the problem with little money as a compensation for their health issues.
5. Why do you think the company’s employees did what they