Print media coverage of California's smokefree bar law

Citation
S. Magzamen et al., Print media coverage of California's smokefree bar law, TOB CONTROL, 10(2), 2001, pp. 154-160
Citations number
27
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health
Journal title
TOBACCO CONTROL
ISSN journal
09644563 → ACNP
Volume
10
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
154 - 160
Database
ISI
SICI code
0964-4563(200106)10:2<154:PMCOCS>2.0.ZU;2-X
Abstract
Objective-To assess the print media coverage of California's smokefree bar law in the state of California. Design-Content analysis of newspaper, trade journal, and magazine items, Subjects-Items regarding the smokefree bar law published seven months befor e and one year following the implementation of the smokefree bar law (June 1997 to December 1998). Items consisted of news articles (n = 446), opinion editorials (n = 31), editorials (n = 104), letters to the editor (n = 240) , and cartoons (n = 10). Main outcome measures-Number and timing of publication of items, presence o f tobacco industry arguments or public health arguments regarding law, posi tive, negative, and neutral views of opinion items published. Results-53% of items published concerning the smokefree bar law were news a rticles, 47% were opinion items. 45% of items regarding the smokefree bar l aw were published during the first month of implementation. The tobacco ind ustry dominated coverage in most categories (economics, choice, enforcement , ventilation, legislation, individual quotes), except for categories publi c health used the most frequently (government role, tactics, organisational quotes). Anti-law editorials and letters to the editor were published more than pro-law editorials and letters. Region of the state, paper size, pres ence of local clean indoor air legislation, and voting on tobacco related b allot initiatives did not have an impact on the presence of opinion items, Conclusions-The tobacco industry succeeded in obtaining more coverage of th e smokefree bar law, both in news items and opinion items. The tobacco indu stry used historical arguments of restricting freedom of choice and economi c ramifications in fighting the smokefree bar law, while public health grou ps focused on the worker protection issue, and exposed tobacco industry tac tics. Despite the skewed coverage, public health groups obtained adequate a ttention to their arguments to keep the law in effect. the state of Califor nia. items published.