The Yes Men and Ethical Activism: A Persuasive Mockumentary Analysis

In The Yes Men Fix The World, activists Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno expose corporate wrongdoing through satire and deception. While their approach deviates from traditional investigative journalism, it effectively engages audiences by blending comedy with activism. Through their media stunts—disseminated via newspapers and television—the film delivers a powerful message: resist corporate greed, challenge unethical practices, and advocate for meaningful change.

One of the central ethical questions raised by Stern (2009) is whether deception is justifiable if used to raise awareness of major civic issues. In other words, does the end justify the means?

Johannesen (2002) explores the ethical dilemmas inherent in communication, arguing that bypassing ethical considerations can sometimes be justified by the significance of the outcome. The Yes Men’s work targets corporate greed, environmental destruction, and economic inequality—issues that many consider worthy of direct action. Their motivation is clear: to expose corporations that prioritize profit over people and to mobilize the public against these injustices. The film advocates resistance against exploitative systems, positioning activism as a moral duty.

But does their activism effectively raise awareness? For the families of the victims of the Bhopal disaster, the answer is likely yes. The Yes Men’s Dow Chemical hoax, which falsely announced compensation for victims, briefly impacted the company’s stock value and reignited discussions about corporate accountability. By highlighting the contrast between “what is” and “what ought to be,” their stunt forced audiences to reconsider Dow’s ethical responsibility.

Stern (2009) also questions the manipulation of journalists in the film, emphasizing the need for fact-checking and credibility in reporting. However, the Yes Men argue that their hoaxes reveal a deeper truth—the moral obligations corporations should uphold but fail to meet. Journalists, in their professional role, are expected to expose wrongdoing. Yet, without the Yes Men’s intervention, would mainstream media have covered these issues with the same urgency? Arguably, no. By making the “ought to be” newsworthy, the Yes Men challenge both corporate and media complacency.

Stern also raises a final question: Is this film a documentary or a strategic communication piece? One could argue that the answer lies in interpretation. The film presents facts and follows a narrative, making it a documentary. However, its satirical tone and exaggerated portrayals align it more with a mockumentary.

Moreover, the film serves as a persuasive piece of strategic communication. It promotes a vision of a more egalitarian society—one that prioritizes human well-being over corporate profits. By engaging audiences in conversation, it encourages civic participation. The film’s closing statement reinforces this message:

“We can think of different ways to contribute to a movement that says business as usual is unacceptable because people are being hurt, and we are not going to play the subservient routine role that we usually play.”

Ultimately, the film challenges its audience to take action:

“Make change happen, put your effort on the line to make something happen… if a few people at the top can make the bad news happen, why can’t all of us at the bottom make the good news for a change?” (The Yes Men).

Suggested Sources: