Volume 6, Number 5

THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Does Balance Apply?

ONE OF THE MOST CHALLENGING TESTS OF journalistic objectivity is reporting the tobacco industry in a balanced manner. While most would acknowledge the health costs associated with cigarette smoking, smoking also affects public policy issues in other ways. Taxation on smoking, smuggling tobacco products and the resulting underground economy have far-reaching effects on society.

The tobacco industry's perspective is that attention to health issues should be balanced with the impact of discriminatory taxation on the industry and how this affects choice. The health community and non-smoker's rights associations believe that this rigid balance takes away from the real issue, that smoking has harmful health costs. Do the costs of smoking on health outweigh the need for the public to be informed on the effect of taxation on tobacco products?

Journalists frequently remind us about the evils of restrictions on the press. Several studies of American magazines which carry tobacco advertisements have criticized the press for self-censorship which down-played the health costs of smoking. [Warner, Kenneth (1985) "Cigarette Advertising and Media Coverage of Smoking and Health," The New England Journal of Medicine, February 7, pp. 384-388.] As Canadian magazines and newspapers do not carry tobacco ads, are our reporters more or less free in reporting the issues around the tobacco industry? In other words, do Canadians censor their material in favour of non-smoking group? And if so, is that equivalent to the American media self-censoring in favour of the tobacco industry?

Probably the most contentious question, given the highly charged nature of the debate between the tobacco industry and the health lobby, is how much information can the public rely on to be accurate? This issue of On Balance examines the way in which the national news media report tobacco issues. The study examines the tobacco industry and smoking coverage in the national newscasts of CBC and CTV, as well as the way in which Canada's national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reports these issues. It should be noted that this study is not an endorsement or rejection of tobacco use. It is an analysis of the information Canadians receive on this issue.

Whose Facts?

IN THE LAW FIRM OF SHOOK, HARDY AND BACON, WHICH represents five of the six big American tobacco companies, a poster hangs in an associate's office: "Smoking is the nation's leading cause of statistics." [As quoted in Margolick, David (1992) "Hired guns butt out claims," The Globe and Mail, November 21, p. B4.] Probably no other statement more succinctly acknowledges the wide range of "facts" and the variety of claims about the effects of tobacco on health. While most would suspect that there is disagreement between the tobacco industry and health groups on the number of smokers, the rate at which their numbers are declining and the causes of the decline, it is interesting to note that the health lobby even disagrees with itself. In our preliminary research on the facts on smoking, we found that the Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smoker's Rights Association, and the Lung Association not only have different approaches to cigarette cessation, but they disagree on the methods for counting the success rates of people who quit smoking.

Apart from the different methodologies for answering questions about the numbers of individuals who smoke and whether smoking is increasing or decreasing, there is much disagreement as to which statistics are important. For example, the Non-Smoker's Rights Association argues that smoking is in decline in Canada as a result of its high taxation. They contend that since the sales of cigarettes are down in Canada, fewer Canadians are smoking.

In contrast, the Tobacco Manufacturers Council argues that Canadians are not necessarily smoking less as a result of taxation, but that they are simply smuggling more Canadian cigarettes out of the United States.

The different rationale of the two sides is illustrated by a 26 September 1992 Globe and Mail story in which the facts were disputed: "Mr. Sweanor [lawyer for the Non-Smoker's Rights Association] said government statistics show `an undeniable link' between the price of cigarettes and the rate of consumption." The Tobacco Manufacturers Council's response, reported in that story was: "excessive taxes weren't causing quitting but were causing smuggling."

Clearly the "facts" are in dispute. The question remains however: which facts did television news and The Globe and Mail report?

Anti-smoking lobby's facts given priority

Neither CBC nor CTV gave much attention to the sales of cigarettes. This issue comprised only one-tenth of CBC's and slightly less than one-tenth of CTV's attention to smoking (figure A). The television networks gave no attention to decreasing domestic sales of cigarettes. And although they did mention that export sales were increasing, it was mentioned only 8 times on both networks combined.

Click here to view Figure A: Smoking Statistics

In contrast, The Globe and Mail's attention to smoking statistics did focus on sales. In fact, sales comprised 40 percent of its attention to smoking. Overall, The Globe and Mail reported export sales increasing and domestic sales decreasing in roughly the same frequency. Increasing export sales received slightly less attention than decreasing domestic sales. At first blush this finding would lead to the conclusion that The Globe and Mail gave equal attention to the tobacco industry and to the anti-smoking lobby's arguments on the issue of the effects of taxation and smoking. However, an examination of the way in which The Globe and Mail presented this information gives a very different impression. Stories which ostensibly support the tobacco industry's position that taxation does not affect tobacco consumption included the fact that foreign sales of tobacco are increasing. The stories where this information was provided were relatively short and offered no arguments. They were simply "Report on Business" stories recounting the business side of the tobacco industry. For example, on 23 October 1992, the "Report on Business" stated: "Cigarette maker Rothmans Inc. says profit in the six months ended September 30 was $28.2-million or $5.12 a share, up from $21.7 million or $3.80 last year. Sales, net of excise duty and taxes, totalled $249.7-million, compared with $222.1-million. The company said that while total unit sales volumes have not increased, a significant portion of its business is now dependent on export volumes."

In contrast, stories on the anti-smoking position--that taxation leads to less people smoking--did articulate this cause-and-effect relationship in the stories on domestic sales decreasing. For example on 19 April 1991 The Globe and Mail ran this headline in their "Report on Business" section: "Cigarette Sales plummet: Tax increases take toll." In the story, David Sweanor, legal counsel for the Non-Smokers Rights Association, was quoted: "Taxation has played a very important role here."

While The Globe and Mail often made the link between the price of cigarettes and decline in smoking they were less likely than CBC or CTV to debate the effectiveness of taxation.

However, when a story described cigarette output it was reported in purely a descriptive form with no link to the effectiveness of taxation and cessation. For example on 17 September 1992 The Globe and Mail reported: "Canadian tobacco companies produced 3.16 billion cigarettes in August, up 2.3 percent from a revised 3.08 billion a year earlier, Statistics Canada says." The story was only 84 words long.

Also of note is the finding that the CBC, CTV, and The Globe and Mail virtually ignored statistics on the number of cigarettes people smoke. The tobacco industry's argument is that while sales may be down, consumption remains the same because more people are buying more tobacco products from the black market, although no one is able to accurately count just how much is being obtained from that source. An examination of Statistics Canada's data on the number of cigarettes consumed, as opposed to cigarette sales, supports the tobacco industry's position that the decline in smoking rates reflects a general trend from the 1960s rather than indicates the effects of taxation (figure B).

Click here to view Figure B: Age-Adjusted Smoking Rates for Population Aged 15 and over, Canada, 1986 - 1991

Smuggling and consumption stories covered separately

As was the case in reports of the amount of smoking and taxation, smuggling and consumption stories were also treated separately. For example in the 7 May 1991Globe and Mail, Sun-Kyung Yi reported that cigarettes were becoming the favourite target of thieves. In the report, the number of store break-ins by thieves looking for cigarettes was reported, but nowhere in the story did Yi discuss the number of cigarettes consumed. Therefore, while Yi acknowledged the increase in smuggling, she did not relate this information to the argument that taxation was not stopping people from smoking, and they were simply choosing less expensive ways to smoke.

. . . the Tobacco Manufacturers Council argues that Canadians are not necessarily smoking less as a result of taxation, but that they are simply smuggling more Canadian cigarettes out of the United States.

Effectiveness of taxation disputed

While The Globe and Mail often made the link between the price of cigarettes and decline in smoking they were less likely than CBC or CTV to debate the effectiveness of taxation. Direct discussion of taxation comprised 17 percent of CBC, 21 percent of CTV but only 11 percent of The Globe and Mail's coverage of tobacco issues.

Unlike the discussion of the sales of domestic cigarettes where the implication that sales going down meant that the high prices were having a positive effect, coverage

Apart from the different methodologies for answering questions about the numbers of individuals who smoke and whether smoking is increasing or decreasing, there is much disagreement as to which statistics are important.

of taxation itself sided with the tobacco industry. In all media examined, the tobacco industry's explicit argument that taxation was too high but that it wasn't making people quit, it was merely encouraging them to break the law, was mentioned more frequently than the government or anti-smoking lobby's calls for increasing taxes.

CBC cites societal pressures as reason for quitting: CTV & Globe say it is economics

There was a wide variance in the reasons given as to why Canadians quit smoking. CBC focused on peer and societal pressures more often than any other reason. While The Globe and Mail acknowledged the powerful influence of social groups, more attention was paid to the high cost of smoking than any other reason on CTV and in The Globe and Mail.

Nicotine patch emphasized in quitting

Of the various methods to quit smoking--ranging from going "cold turkey" to acupuncture--the method which received the most attention was the nicotine patch. Much of this attention resulted from the fact that the patch was just announced in the period of this study. Because it was untested, the reports simply described the method and provided little discussion about its effectiveness.

. . . CBC, CTV, and The Globe and Mail virtually ignored statistics on the number of cigarettes people smoke.

Health Risks Noted by all Media

IN THE FEBRUARY 22, 1993 EDITION OF MACLEAN'S magazine, editor Kevin Doyle made the claim that tobacco reporting is controlled by a "slavish reporting of self-interest group views" to be balanced. He writes: "It is as predictable as the seasons that for every medical finding of health risks, reporters, often under heavy pressure from their editors, will give the claims of the non-scientists from the tobacco lobby equal space with legitimate researchers."

This is a common rhetorical device used to illustrate the practical problems that arise from applying a rigid notion of balance. However, the science, health, and medical reporters for The Globe and Mail, CTV and CBC, such as Paul Taylor, Eve Savory, and Avis Favaro, never succumbed to the "pressures of their editors" to give the tobacco industry's perspective in any story on the health risks of tobacco use. In fact, in the two-year period examined, not one of the 154 stories which reported the health risks of tobacco in The Globe and Mail or on CBC or CTV national news ever gave the tobacco industry's perspective on the health issues. From stories on smoking causing blindness, to stories that children whose parents smoke receive lower IQ scores, to stories on smoking causing impotence--never did CBC, CTV, or The Globe and Mail provide statements from the tobacco industry or from sceptical scientists.

For example, in the 11 January 1991 Globe and Mail story on passive smoke, Paul Taylor reported on a U.S. study: "In an article published in the current issue of Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association, Prof. Glantz and Dr. William Parmley, also of the University of California, reviewed 71 separate studies dealing with various aspects of second-hand smoke. They concluded `a whole bunch of bad things happen' when people breathe in second-hand smoke, Prof. Glantz said in an interview." At no point did Taylor provide evidence to contradict the findings. Further, no one from the tobacco industry was quoted in the story.

Similarly, on 13 November 1992 Lloyd Robertson reported: "And a final medical note this evening, this one on cigarette smoking. Researchers have found that women who smoke dramatically reduce their chances of having children. That is because of a by-product of nicotine that seeps into the human egg and makes it much more resistant to fertilization. The study, published in the British Journal, Lancet." The preceding was the story in its entirety. Clearly, there was no "slavish reporting of self-interest groups" in these cases.

Tobacco industry's health facts not presented

While The Globe and Mail would acknowledge that the tobacco industry had alternative evidence about the hazards of second-hand smoke, this information or data was never revealed in the coverage. At most, the story would acknowledge the opposing information--often discrediting the information--and then proceed with the remainder of the story. For example, on January 5, 1991 Paul Raeburn wrote an article for the "Report on Business" acknowledging that the tobacco industry has alternative evidence: "When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened a panel of scientific experts to rule on whether second-hand cigarette smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers, both sides arrived fully armed. Most of the megatonnage belonged to the tobacco industry, which employed an army of public relations people brandishing bulging reports rebutting everything ever said about the dangers of passive smoking." While the story illustrated the power of the tobacco industry and portrayed the anti-smoking lobby as the weaker opponent, the tobacco industry's evidence was never provided. This in turn discounted the tobacco industry's position out of hand.

"It is as predictable as the seasons that for every medical finding of health risks, reporters, often under heavy pressure from their editors, will give the claims of the non-scientists from the tobacco lobby equal space with legitimate researchers."

Similarly, on the 21 May 1992 CTV News, Lloyd Robertson introduced a story on second-hand smoking: "We have all known for some time that smoking is bad for us. Now we learn that smoking may be even more hazardous than was previously believed. A British study released tonight predicts that in this decade, almost half a million Canadians will die from the effects of smoking." The only argument from the smoker's perspective did not question the medical findings, but argued for freedom of choice. Phil Gillies, representing a smokers' rights group stated: "It really comes down now to a matter of choice. Canadians have got to decide now, faced with all the information at hand, whether they want to smoke or not."

Although television news provided less attention to the tobacco industry, they often provided a greater variety of stories than did The Globe and Mail. For example, on 22 September 1992, Jim Munson examined a story on the death of the family farm. "The September tobacco harvest, something the Bernard family has been doing for 33 years. This year is the last. Fewer people are smoking, tobacco taxes are high, and the big tobacco companies are saying they don't need as many tobacco leaves any more."

The Marlboro Man

An illustration of how the media treats information from the tobacco industry is revealed in the case of the Marlboro Man. Both Canadian networks and The Globe and Mail reported the story that the Marlboro man, Wayne McLaren, died of cancer. McLaren claimed to have been the model used for the successful Marlboro man ads which depicted rough and rugged cowboys enjoying Marlboro cigarettes. McLaren later became ill with cancer. He spent the last years of his life trying to encourage people to stop smoking. He attributed his cancer to smoking.

While television news and The Globe and Mail all reported McLaren's obituary and his allegations, none verified the claims with Phillip Morris, the company which manufactures Marlboro cigarettes. Had they confirmed the information they would have found that Wayne McLaren was never used as the model for the Marlboro man.

Globe and Mail in focus

In a letter to the Editor, Garfield Manhood, the Executive Director of the Non-Smoker's Rights Association, acknowledged that "publications like The Globe and Mail . . . have played a leadership role in tobacco control." This study has shown that The Globe and Mail news section was more likely to sympathetically present the anti-tobacco position than that of the tobacco industry. Does that tendency include the features and letters that get reported in the paper?

Features emphasize non-smoking

There were almost half as many features written from the anti-smoking perspective as from the tobacco industry's point of view (30 and 21 percent respectively).

Letters originate from non-smokers

Letters to the editor were four times as likely to be penned from non-smokers and their associations than from smokers and the tobacco industry.

METHODOLOGY

Results are based on census samples of 29 CBC National, 12 Journal, 2 Sunday Report, 2 Venture, and 2 Prime Time News stories as well as 63 CTV National News stories. In addition, 224 news, and 40 features in The Globe and Mail, along with 13 editorials and 47 letters to the editor in that same publication were coded between January 1, 1991 and ending December 31, 1992. This represents a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Four researchers were employed in coding the news stories. The researchers were selected on the basis of their differing political views. In addition, two of the researchers were smokers, two non-smokers. To assess the clarity of the research instrument and measure consistency, tests of inter-coder reliability were conducted throughout the procedure. A high level of intercoder reliability (0.83) was obtained.

Any disagreements in assessments by researchers were discussed, and the rating was changed until consensus was reached on all stories.

Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

Smuggling Given Prominent Attention

IN RECENT MONTHS, TOBACCO SMUGGLING HAS BECOME A recurring topic for news stories. Not only are audiences told of lucrative trade in tobacco on native reserves, but the stories also note the way in which the underground economy has been linked with organized crime. This aspect of tobacco invokes interesting parallels with the prohibition years and the romance and intrigue of fortunes being amassed in the illegal trade of an otherwise legal substance. As well, the irony that criminals can do better to trade in tobacco than illegal drugs no doubt has influenced the decision to run smuggling stories. For example, as Kelly Crow reported on 25 June 1991: "Cigarettes have replaced illegal drugs as the contraband of choice. Police say they're as good as cash on the street. At the same time, it's costing the government a fortune--an estimated $300-million dollars in lost taxes every year."

TV focused more attention on smuggling than did Globe

Television news provided proportionately more attention to smuggling than did The Globe and Mail. During the two years analyzed, smuggling comprised almost one-quarter of CBC and one-fifth of CTV attention to the tobacco industry. In contrast, in The Globe and Mail, smuggling comprised slightly over one-tenth of total attention. This finding underlines the different approaches to reporting tobacco issues between television and print. Television was more interested in the glamour and intrigue of smuggling, whereas The Globe and Mail focused more attention on technical aspects of sales, government responsibilities and health issues.

As well, television differed in its coverage of smuggling because it presented the tobacco industry's perspective more sympathetically than did The Globe and Mail. For example, on 11 December 1992, CTV's Joy Malbon reported on the black market in cigarettes. She concluded the story by stating: "Until that changes [$35.00 tax on every carton], Stamler [RCMP Officer] insists smuggling is here to stay and cheaper tax-free smokes will be the cigarette of choice for Canadians who still can't kick the habit."

In contrast, in an in depth story on smuggling on 18 June 1992, Globe and Mail reporter Ross Howard did not discuss the social costs of smuggling. Instead, the details of his story focused on the amount the tobacco industry was exporting. The story opened with the following: "The Canadian tobacco industry has resumed exporting large quantities of cigarettes, which are being smuggled back into Canada, weeks after the government announced its controversial anti-smuggling tax." And while Howard acknowledged that "nearly one in four packages of cigarettes consumed in Canada during the month of May was illegally acquired" little information about who was involved in the illegal activity was discussed. In its placed were accusations of "arrogance on the part of the industry."

TV news focused more attention on smokers

Television news was more likely to present a sympathetic image of the smoker than was The Globe and Mail. In stories on smuggling, for example, television would go to coffee shops and areas where smokers converge and provide a sympathetic ear for smokers who were tired of the high taxes and saw no conflict in smuggling cigarettes or purchasing them from the black market. On 12 July 1991, the Journal ran a story on smuggling. To promote the story, CBC ran the following excerpt which encapsulated the demand, intrigue and danger for contraband cigarettes: "Coming up on the Journal: Bill Cameron. The black market in cigarettes."

Man: It's just hard to comprehend that it can be considered illegal when you have everybody asking `can I get a connection?'

Bill Cameron: Skyrocketing cigarette prices: they're creating a lucrative market for smugglers and thieves.

Man: He says, `I want them cigarettes,' and that's when they pulled a gun.

Solutions emphasize more regulation

Stories on the problems of smuggling focused on the lucrativeness of the industry, the weak enforcement and the influence of natives in the trade of contraband cigarettes. Almost one-third of The Globe and Mail's and over one-quarter of CBC's statements on smuggling offered solutions. On CTV, solutions comprised less than one-fifth of the network's attention to smuggling (figure C). As figure D illustrates, of the solutions presented, three-quarters of CBC's, all of CTV's and four-fifths of The Globe and Mail's attention examined government policies.

Click here to view Figure C: Smuggling and Solutions

Click here to view Figure D: Coverage of Solutions

While all three media analyzed focused on the government, their attention differed. In The Globe and Mail, twice as many statements supporting the government were reported as those critical of the government's proposals. Many of The Globe and Mail stories on smuggling indicated that tobacco smuggling was increasing, and then suggested that greater enforcement and money would be needed to counteract the problem. For example, in the 7 December 1992 Globe and Mail, Canadian Press provided this story: "...Matsqui police arrested two people when they intercepted a van making a border run across farmers' fields with a cargo of 367 cartons of U.S.-made cigarettes valued at $18,000. `Recently we added, across Canada, 100 members to the Customs and Excise section as a result of the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco from the U.S.' said RCMP spokesman Sergeant Peter Montague. `It's a big crackdown and without question we are throwing a lot of our resources at the problem.'"

As figure D shows, all of CTV's and twice as many CBC evaluations disagreed that the government's solutions were working.

Smuggling coverage fails to address causes

TV focused more attention on the social costs of smuggling than did The Globe and Mail. On television, the costs of crime were emphasized in the coverage. Globe and Mail stories merely acknowledged that smuggling occurred but did not present the graphic examples of how much money could be made, or how many people thought that it was not only not wrong, but was, in fact, a form of tax protest. As well, television focused on the damaging effects of smuggling and crime, such as theft associated with contraband cigarettes. The Globe and Mail stories downplayed these aspects of the issue.

It appears that in its coverage of the issue The Globe and Mail has sided with the anti-smoking lobby by focusing on the health issue at the expense of the taxation issue. In a story which described the findings of a study on the impact of tobacco smuggling on organized crime, Dr. Bob Evans of the Royal Commission on Smoking argued why health should be the issue, and not taxation and smuggling: "This publication is trying to shift the ground of debate from the question of whether tobacco smoking kills people, to who benefits and who loses from tobacco taxation. That's not the point. The point is the damn stuff kills people."

Non-Smokers and Health Lobby Get More Coverage than Tobacco Industry

BOTH TELEVISION NEWS AND THE GLOBE AND MAIL WENT to the anti-smoking lobby and health groups more often for information than to the tobacco industry. Almost half of CBC's, over one-third of CTV's and over one-quarter of The Globe and Mail's sources were representatives either of the anti-smoking lobby or of various health groups involved in the tobacco debate, such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association and the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health (figure E).

Click here to view Figure E: Sources used in Tobacco Coverage

In contrast, over one-quarter of CBC's, one-quarter of CTV's and over one-fifth of The Globe and Mail's sources were tobacco industry representatives or those who profit from the industry such as retailers. In fact, on CTV and in The Globe and Mail, not only did the tobacco industry provide fewer statements than the non-smoking lobby, but also received less coverage than government representatives. Considering that government has adopted an anti-smoking policy, this finding indicates that non-smoking representatives offered twice as much information to the debate than did the tobacco industry.

The Righteous Lobby

WHILE REPORTERS CAN PRESENT EQUAL TIME FROM each group, how they portray the groups can also influence the way in which the public accepts information from the sides. In examining statements made about the groups on the tobacco issue, it is interesting to note that in The Globe and Mail there was cynicism with respect to the tobacco lobby. For example, on 22 May 1992, Ross Howard began a story on the tobacco export tax with: "It's not every day that an industry producing a known health hazard can persuade the federal government to abandon an attack on the smuggling of its product into Canada." Later in the story, he discussed the power of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Association's head: "Mr. Neville--a Tory intimate and a Mulroney appointee to the CBC board of governors--is believed to earn $400,000 a year for his efforts on behalf of the CTMC. He reinforced the letter with `briefings' of senior bureaucrats in their offices. Confident of success, he resumed preparations to step down as chief tobacco lobbyist."

No similar cynicism or condemnation existed with respect to the anti-smoking groups. Therefore, while the tobacco industry was able to present its view in half the coverage of anti-smoking groups and the government, that attention was diminished by the caveats and negative treatment journalists gave the industry itself. The hidden motives or assumed agenda of the tobacco industry were at the forefront of the discussion. Not only was the anti-smoking lobby not treated with the same disdain, but the reverse was true. Their altruism in ridding the country of smoking, despite the costs, was tacitly approved by the way the journalists treated them with great authority and credibility.

While reporters had no qualms about questioning the integrity of individuals who are in the business of selling tobacco products, they never examined the anti-smoking lobby with the same rigour. For example, while the Non-Smokers Rights Association was quoted frequently throughout the two year period in The Globe and Mail, never was David Sweanor or Garfield Manhood, the Executive Director of the Non-Smoker's Rights Association questioned in the same manner as Bill Neville of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.

Further, when Sweanor and Manhood made contradictory remarks during the period studied, those comments were never questioned. For example, one of the key arguments of the Non-Smoker's Rights Association is that increasing the prices on cigarettes, through taxation, would ultimately reduce smoking in Canada.

Yet when the tobacco industry increased the price of wholesale tobacco, David Sweanor complained that this action would increase profits, and argued that the tobacco companies should not be able to increase their prices. Ironically, they forgot their own arguments that favour the increase of prices for cigarettes. For example, on 8 October 1992 Ann Gibson concluded the story on tobacco companies increasing their prices by 4.9 percent with: "Mr. Sweanor said the wholesale price increase will mean between $100 million and $120 million in extra revenue in the pockets of the country's cigarette

. . . while the tobacco industry was able to present its view in half the coverage of anti-smoking groups and the government, that attention was diminished by the caveats and negative treatment journalists gave the industry itself.

firms each year. `Although the price increase seems small, the actual amount of money coming into the tobacco companies is quite large.'" Rather than questioning Mr. Sweanor's previous remarks that more expensive tobacco products reduces consumption Gibson ended the story saying: "Cigarette companies can get away with raising prices for two reasons, he said: the lack of competition in the Canadian industry and the highly addictive nature of cigarettes."

CBC describes anti-smoking groups as powerful lobby

In contrast, CBC and CTV acknowledged that both the tobacco industry and anti-smoking groups were powerful lobby groups. For example, on 1 August 1991 Kevin Newman reported on The National: "It took years of work by these anti-smoking activists to convince the government to restrict tobacco advertising. Now they're back, working Ottawa's avenues and corridors trying to blunt the effect of the Quebec Superior Court decision to strike down the law."

Tobacco Ad Ban

MOST STORIES ON THE TOBACCO ADVERTISING BAN recounted Quebec court judge's Chabot's decision that the tobacco ad ban was unconstitutional. Apart from repeating Judge Chabot's decision, very little debate was provided on the ethical and logical arguments for and against the ban (figure F). While journalists provided evidence to refute the judge's comments that the effectiveness of the ban in reducing smoking was unconvincing, it is ironic that they did not venture to debate the freedom of expression issues. For example, on 27 July 1991 Barrie McKenna reported: "Judge Chabot also said Ottawa had failed to prove that making advertising illegal would actually reduce consumption. `Faced with all the existing evidence before the law was adopted, this possibility that advertising affects consumption is no more than speculation and certainly does not rise to the level of probability,' he said in a 148-page judgement delivered after nine months of deliberations." Immediately following the statement from Judge Chabot was the following information: "Canadian consumption is reported to have shrunk by about 25 percent since 1988, and tobacco sales have fallen steadily. Last month, Statistics Canada reported a 20 percent cut in sales, the largest single drop in more than a decade. The ban on advertising has been accompanied by sharp tax increases that have raised the cost of cigarettes dramatically." What is interesting about this passage is that in no story that gave the anti-smoking lobby's position was any similar contradictory evidence provided.

Click here to view Figure F: Legislative Initiatives

Curiously, rather than discussing the issue of freedom of speech, reports discussed what the tobacco industry and government's next moves would be and what new ads might look like.

What is ironic about The Globe and Mail's coverage of tobacco in general and the advertising ad ban specifically is that while The Globe and Mail self-censored itself in portraying news stories in favour of the anti-smoking lobby, it was editorially against the tobacco ad ban.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.