Tobacco: a litmus test for the media in a free society
Sunday, November 28, 2010 In 1988, more than a decade before I began working for Forest, I wrote a 115-page report that analysed over 300 articles in five national newspapers (The Times, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Independent) from October 1984 to March 1988.
The report was called Smoke Out: How The Quality Press Covers The Smoking Debate. This week I found a copy in, where else, a box at the back of my garage. The blurb on the cover reads:
Smoking has never been illegal in this country and it is a matter for genuine debate whether the arguments against it on health grounds should outweigh the financial arguments in its favour, or whether smokers' rights to indulge in a personal habit should override non-smokers' preference for clean air.
The smoking debate tests the media in several ways. First there is the wide range of arguments, for and against. Then there is the political battle running alongside the medical debate. The most important parties to the controversy have their own special interests that taint their objectivity.
Most important, the media must strike a balance between exaggeration and understatement. They must shun sensationalism without sacrificing their story. Both critics and supporters of smoking are anxious to use the media to promote their cause; good journalists should make sure they are not being used.
Some people might question whether - in the smoking debate - 'balance' and impartiality is that important. The answer, quite simply, is 'Yes'. Standards of journalism matter in a free society, and if they abandoned when dealing with an unpopular subject like the tobacco industry then they will not be maintained in other more mainstream areas of debate.
It is always the hard cases and unpopular causes that best serve as a litmus test for media standards. If the quality press fails to inform its readership to the best of its ability it is no better than the tabloids that, so often, it derides.
I suspect that many of you will be wearily familiar with my analysis which found systematic bias and concluded with these words:
It is clear that standards of journalism have fallen well short of what is required for the fair coverage of a controversial issue. Analytical, non-partisan articles are extremely rare. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the smoking 'debate' has been conducted via a series of 'news' reports, the majority of which are simply the result of a press release or a story handed directly to the journalist or news desk concerned.
Alarmingly, the journalist is often prepared to accept such 'news' at face value. On relatively few occasions does he quote those who might be expected to hold opposing views. Since much of what passes for 'news' in the smoking debate is generated by those attacking smoking, the result is a 'debate' that is woefully one-sided in favour of the health lobby.
Sadly, nothing has changed. In the last fortnight there have been three significant smoking-related stories - smoking during pregnancy may make children career criminals, UK government considers plain packaging, and, two days ago, passive smoking kills 600,000 people worldwide every year.
The tobacco lobby was completely ignored for the two 'health' stories. On plain packaging both Forest and the Tobacco Manufacturers Association were quoted by several newspapers but, speaking for Forest, we had to push hard to get our views in print. With the exception of BBC News, no journalist approached us, we had to go to them.
Reader Comments (3)
TBH Simon - I really do think that a lot of journalists are so brainwashed that they honestly don't think ANYONE cares about tobacco and others are warned that giving space to positive comments about smoking is "highly irresponsible and likely to cause death by agony".
That is the tragedy.
I see comment moderation is on. Is your blog being harassed again?
It just seems that the quality of journalism has deteriorated drastically over the years and nowadays they are mostly no more than 'yes men' (or should that be persons?) to the powers that be - whoever their paper is trying to curry favour with, for whatever reason?
It is sad to think that as we apparently continue to devlove, we are, in fact, going backwards far faster than we ever went forward.
Yes I agree Journalism can certainly never lay claim to the buzz words 'going forward' going backwards is entirely more appropriate these days, they have all become dumbed down, whether in journalist school or on the paper.
Even the good investigative journalists only seem to go after the big political stories and ignore the civil liberty issues like smoking.
Just like the govt they're afraid to buck the populist view.
Its an awful shame as these are the guys at the hub that can expose an injustice.