Smoking
Jeannie Grant
University of Georgia

Project Rationale:
    This project is based on the topic of smoking cigarettes.  The project shows how different groups express information about the same topic.  It describes how authors stress certain facts more than others to try to influence the audience.  This project also shows how authors use certain writing techniques to encourage the readers to feel one way or the other.  Basically, this project, on smoking, gives insight to the biases created by authors.

Findings:
    There have been many different conflicts between those against smoking and the tobacco companies.  There have been arguments about advertising which include:  whether or not the government has the right to ban cigarette advertisements, and if the ban is against the companies First Amendment, freedom of speech.  The effects of smoking and second hand smoke are also argued, and why the tobacco companies did not inform the consumers of the health risks when they were first discovered.  Arguments also include in which public places smokers should be allowed to smoke, while many are happy with decisions like banning smoke in restaurants and bars, others argue that people should be able to smoke where they would like.  Because the conflicts will continue, information about the arguments are still presented in the media.

Conclusions:
    The majority of news groups are against smoking, want to limit the number of children smoking, and are in favor of smoke free environments.  This attitude about smoking is expressed in the media's articles and broadcasts to the public.  The media usually does not include information or comments made by the tobacco companies of the issue the article is discussing.  Although the media is biased in this way, most sources are reliable and credibly, giving accurate information to the audience.  Anti smoking groups believe that cigarette advertisements have a great effect on a child's decision to smoke, therefore the group wants to limit the amount of advertisements children come into contact with.  The group also wants to create an environment that is smoke free, the group believes that second hand smoke is dangerous to one's health and should not be subjected to the cigarette smoke.  Those against believe that banning advertisements is against the First Amendment and that making public places smoke free will hurt a business's sales.  Although both sides have research, the outcome seems to be completely different depending on which side of the argument the research is meant to support.  These biases are found throughout the articles against smoking and those in favor of smoking.
 
 
 

"Before the Bell"

    This broadcast is talking about the Joe Camel advertisement ban.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took RJ Reynolds to court to stop the Joe Camel advertising campaign.  The FTC claims that the campaign is targeted and that the tobacco companies intentionally meant for the advertisements to target children.  RJ Reynolds stands behind the Joe Camel campaign and states that the company will continue to fight against the advertisement ban.  This broadcast also mentions that the FTC had information to support the claims three years ago, but the FTC is not telling how much information the committee had.
    This news broadcast lasted about 2 minutes and 15 seconds.  A majority of the time was spent on the claims and reasons the Federal Trade Commission is trying to ban the Joe Camel advertisements.  The broadcast does not supply the audience with the tobacco company's rebuttal or comments about the FTC's claims.  While the facts are reliable about the Federal Trade Commission's views, the broadcast is bias.  The broadcast only gives information that supports the ban against the Joe Camel campaign.  Therefore, this broadcast is effective in encouraging and supporting the FTC in banning the Joe Camel advertisements.
 

Read the Article Here

"Tobacco Companies To Reduce Cigarette Sales to Teens"

    This broadcast is about the lawsuits against tobacco companies by attorneys general in thirty states.  Between the two, deals are being made to try to please both sides.  The attorneys general want to make tobacco companies help stop teen smoking, stop advertising that is aimed at children, and for the companies to lower the amount of nicotine in the cigarettes.  In return the tobacco companies want some protection from health related lawsuits by tobacco consumers.  At the time of the article, an agreement had not been reached, but both sides were to continue talking to try and make a deal.  The Connecticut Attorney General was very optimistic about the negotiations, but the Mississippi Attorney General was not willing to bet anything.
    The narrator seems to have an impartial tone, yet the people he talks to are in strong favor of the ban.  Therefore, this broadcast is biased because only one side of the argument is presented.  This broadcast leaves many unanswered questions.  For example, this broadcast might cause the audience to wonder if anything besides merchandise and advertising effects children's decision to begin smoking.  These  questions that are not addressed and the one sided information causes this broadcast to be bias.
 

Read the Article Here

"Tacoma Cigarette Ad Ban"

    This broadcast is to inform the audience that in Tacoma, Washington, the federal district court decided that the government could ban some of the tobacco advertisements.  The government wants to limit the advertising, because many people agree that the advertising is aimed at children.  Although the tobacco companies believe that this ruling is against the 1st Amendment, it was not discussed in the court trial.  While tobacco companies are far from ending the fight on advertisement restrictions, anti smoking groups are very happy with the ruling and are optimistic about the effects of the ruling.
    This broadcast includes a few facts and statistics to earn credibility, but also includes the use of a bandwagon fallacy.  This fallacy is used to encourage the listeners to talk with their local governments to also put restrictions on tobacco advertising in their area.  This broadcast greatly deals with the perspective in favor and happy with the ban, but does quickly mention the views of the opposing side.  Because of the bandwagon fallacy and the one-sided information this is a biased broadcast.
 

Read the Article Here

"Study Links Cigarette Gear, Youth Smoking"

    This article is about the effects of promotional items on children smoking.  Many children have promotional merchandise, although it is illegal for companies to sell merchandise to children.  This article contains a range of facts and statistics about the effects of promotional merchandise and a child's decision to become a smoker.   There was also research done, at Dartmouth Medical School, about peer pressure and family members smoking effect on children.  The article also mentions that The Food and Drug Administration wants to stop the production of the merchandise.
    This article is biased in that it gives little information for support of the tobacco companies.  Because there are many facts and statistics to support the author's comments the article is credibly.  There is a logical appeal in that to help prevent children from smoking and harming their health, children should not have promotional merchandise.  With the logical appeal and one-sided information the article is bias.
 

Read the Article Here

"Tobacco debate turns to advertising limits; some say Supreme Court would choose kids' health over free speech."

    This article is about the Federal Trade Commission's wishes to limit tobacco advertisements and the Senate deciding if they should limit the advertisements.  The article also discusses the effects that movies have on children along with advertisements.  The tobacco companies mention that the ban would be against the companies’ First Amendment and that the companies want protect from lawsuits.
    In this article there are both views on whether or not Congress should try to stop the advertisement of cigarettes and that there are mixed opinions.  Although the author does not intentionally seem to be bias, there is a logical appeal, which creates this bias.  The overall impression on the audience seems to be convincing that an advertisement ban would decrease the number of teen smokers.
 

Read the Article Here

"Put Out the Butt, Junior"

    This article is about a few events that have affected the tobacco companies through the year of 1996.  One decision was in the court system is whether or not to put limit restrictions on cigarette advertisements.  This would effect magazines, billboards, and advertisements in stores.  Sporting events could also not be sponsored by a tobacco company with the decision made in the court trial.  Tobacco companies plan to fight the advertisement ban, because the companies say it is against the their freedom of speech, the First Amendment.  This article also talks about the lawsuits against the  tobacco companies from smokers with health problems caused by smoking.  In one trial it was discovered that executives from the tobacco companies tried to hide documents that discussed the addiction of cigarettes.  Some have found in favor of the companies, while other cases the companies were found guilty.  Because of the issues that have affected the tobacco companies the stock of the companies dropped.
    The author of this article earns credibility through a couple of quotes by the Food and Drug Administration.  There is little information from the tobacco companies, so this creates a bias by the author.  With only one side of an argument presented, the audience does not receive impartial information.  This author uses a subtle bandwagon approach to encourage readers to join the many others who are in agreement with the advertising ban.  This article also tries to convince the audience that the ban is an important way to help protect teenagers and lower their likelihood of beginning to smoke.
 

Read the Article Here

"Anti smoking guardian kicks butts in the Big Smoke"

    This article deals with the effects of the decision to ban smoking in restaurants and bars in the City of Toronto.  While many smokers are upset with the new law, the medical officer of health for the city believes it is a good way to limit the amount of the environmental tobacco smoke also known as ETS.  Many workers have enjoyed the smoke free environment and are happy to have the same in restaurants and bars.  The Ontario Restaurant Association was extremely opposed to the new law, believing that it would cause a decrease in the number of sales.  The city of Toronto will continue to work on putting a stop to ETS.
    This article includes many quotes from the medical officer of health for Toronto, Dr. McKeown.  Because a majority of the article is Dr. McKeown’s opinion, which is in favor of the ban, the article is bias.  The article is also biased, because it does not include much information from both sides of the argument about the decision to ban smoking in restaurants and bars.
 

Read the Article Here

"Truth"

    This web site talks about the health risks related to smoking cigarettes.  The web site also discusses its mission statement to inform the public about the risks and to encourage smokers to stop.  The web site includes information about court decisions on smoking, and what the tobacco companies have said in the past along with the web sites view on what the companies said.  There is also a list of the five biggest tobacco companies with which brands of cigarettes the company sells, the amount of tobacco sales, and the U.S. market shares.  There are several links which have more information to support the Truth's web site.  The web site also includes the Truth advertisements that are against smoking.
    This web site is obviously bias and strongly against smoking.  The web site includes a graphic picture of health risks, which might have a strong effect on a smoker.  The web site also includes statements made by the tobacco companies and then basically calls the companies liars that are only interested in profit not consumer's health.  The anti smoking advertisements also make the web site bias.  Because this web site is only told from one point of view the site is bias and was intentionally done.
 

Read the Article Here

"Smoking Causes Web-Links"

    This web site is largely made of links to both articles in favor and against smoking.  The site also includes a link to subscribe to The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter and a couple of other books.  There are also a list of the prices of cigarettes around the world.  A couple of graphs are shown that do not support the idea that if the price of cigarettes is raised, the number of smokers will decrease.
    Although the site does include information from both sides of the argument, there are about twice as many links to articles in favor of smoking to those against.  This mostly one-sided information creates a biased web site.  The author is a smoker and has no authority, but the links do earn credibility through different reputable sources.

Read the Article Here