Reaction Essay: The Corporation

The documentary The Corporation, directed by Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar and produced in 2004, although bias, opens many doors for discussion in regard to capitalism and the role of corporations in our lives. I found the documentary to be presented professionally, and filled with legitimate facts more so than extreme opinion. The documentary truly outlines the "all-pervasive" role the corporation has taken as the "world's dominant institution".

The film opens with a critique on the media's most widely-used metaphor to describe certain corporations as "a few bad apples". Among many newscasters quoted, George Bush is also shown belittling unjust corporations to a few bad apples. The documentary takes this and runs, so to speak, through exemplifying the short-sighted and belittling nature of this metaphor in describing the majority of the corporate world and its monopolizing, exploitive capabilities and tendencies. The film deems Dr. Frankenstein's creation to be analogous with the rise of corporations. The documentary illustrates corporations to have started as something for the "public good". The film discusses original chartered corporations with clear stipulations to avoid the multitude of injustices apparent today. This background information creates the outline for how far corporations have strayed from their role as a social betterment.

The film outlines the turning point to have occurred during the signing of the fourteenth amendment, this amendment was pushed between 1890 and 1910 in the name of free slaves. The amendment allots equal rights for individuals in terms of property, capital and the pursuit of happiness. The film highlights the fact that corporations skewed the amendment to include all corporations as individuals, thus allotting the rights of a person to a corporation. This in turn takes the blame off of many individuals leading a corporation and instead views them as one entity. The documentary quotes a white, male CEO of a company stating: "No soul to save, no body to incarcerate" this illustrates the danger in deeming corporations as persons.
The film utilizes the film maker Michael Moore, he is first pictured stating that corporations have "one incentive: make as much money as possible". Moore makes the interesting distinction that there is no marker for "enough", how much money is "enough" for a billionaire corporation?

The film places most emphasis on the "harms" of corporations, dividing segments into slides illustrating particular harms. The first segment depicts corporate harms to workers in the form of layoffs, union busts, factory fires, sweat shops etc. The film continues to outline harms to the environment in the form of dangerous production methods, toxic waste, pollution, synthetic chemicals, etc. The rise of synthetic chemicals is highlighted indicating this allows corporations to make everything at a lower cost, which as stated by the film is the monetary bottom line for all corporations. The documentary holds the corporate industry solely responsible for the United States' cancer epidemic.

The film also focuses on harms to animals: habitat deconstruction, factory farming, and animal experimentation which in my mind was the most influential part of the documentary: the discussion on the company Monsanto and animal hormones. The documentary discusses data showing the negative ramifications of the wide use of Monsanto products. The product Polisic is shown advertised for a needed increase in farming income, followed by proof of infection spreading to the milk we consume at home. Other hormones were discussed that in terms of humans affect the curability of infections in that a resistance to antibiotics is built. The example of staph infection was given specifically and our difficulty to maintain a cure due to resistance to antibodies. Back to Monsanto, the documentary stated that persons in the U.S. were able to sue the company $80million as compensation for health damages such as cancer caused by the company's Agent Orange used in Vietnam. The film listed a multitude of companies sued for over $1million in fines, however never mentioned in the press.

Most shocking in the discussion of Monsanto, is the film's coverage of a court case in which two Fox news reporters stood up for their right to serve as a valid news source. Two workers are depicted to have been assigned by Fox to change and hide their findings on the Monsanto companies' injustices and their inability to speak the truth. Rather than a happy ending, after hours of efforts, many letters, etc. the ex-workers received $425,000 as a settlement however only later to be withdrawn with shocking reasoning. The case closed with the conclusion that it is not technically illegal to produce false news. The workers lose and the corporation wins, thus pus still remains in our milk and most people, save those fortunate to hear the uncensored truth, will continue to drink it with smiles.