Barb Flis

GIS 3991: Media in America

Instructor: Moti Nissani

April 3, 2000

I am a child advocate, and so when I was called upon to examine how the media reported on a particular topic, I naturally gravitated toward children’s issues. I quickly became overwhelmed by how many serious issues there were to choose from. I began to make a list, and discovered that most of them fell into one of two categories, health or education. The typical student in me reviewed the list looking for the easiest issue to understand, with the simplest solution. The child advocate in me, however, searched for the issue which posed the greatest threat to children. To my surprise, the issues were one in the same – tobacco.

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 15,700 people in Michigan die each year from smoking. And the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also reports that "Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined – and thousands more die from other tobacco-related causes -- such as fires caused by smoking (more than 1,000 deaths/year nationwide), exposure to second hand smoke (more than 40,000 deaths), and smokeless tobacco use." (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/TobaccoToll.php3?StateID=MI) So, you may ask, how is that a threat to Michigan’s children? According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, this year 53,000 little Michiganders, under the age of 18 will become new daily smokers. In addition 38% of Michigan high school students smoke and 14% of high school males are using smokeless tobacco. You may also be interested to know that 11.0 million packs of cigarettes were illegally sold to kids in our state this year. If we continue at this rate, 230,000 Michigan kids alive today will die from smoking. The good news is that these trends can be reversed through an adequately funded comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Michigan leaders wouldn’t have to look too far for guidelines on a comprehensive tobacco prevention program. The Centers for Disease Control recommends that states establish comprehensive tobacco control programs. A comprehensive program would state specific counter-marketing, including paid advertising; offer cessation assistance for smokers, including underage smokers; have community-based programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use; school-based programs; enforcement of laws that prohibit sales of tobacco to minors; and evaluation of monitoring to ensure that the programs are working effectively. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/cdc_report.shtml)

Currently three states stand out for their successful prevention programs and tobacco reduction. The first one is California where in the first three years of the program, cigarette consumption fell by more than 40 percent. They have also kept their teen smoking rate 5 to 10 percent below the rest of the nation. The second is Massachusetts where cigarette consumption has declined by 31 percent since 1992, compared to a decline of just 7 percent in the rest of the country (excluding California). Teen smoking in Massachusetts has decreased while increasing in the rest of the country. (Operation Invest: Investing Tobacco Settlement Money in a Tobacco-Free Future for Michigan, Tobacco-Free Michigan Action Coalition, PO Box 25002, Lansing, Michigan 48909) The third state and most recent to get attention for its tobacco prevention program is Florida. In one year, their aggressive program has shown 19 percent drop in tobacco use among middle school students and an 8 percent drop for high school students. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/StateSettlement.php3?StateID=FL) Naturally these programs do not come cheaply. The CDC estimates that Michigan would have to spend between $53 and $149 million per year for an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention and reduction program. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/StateSettlement.php3?StateID=MI)

That is quite a price to pay each year for tobacco prevention and reduction, but we have no choice because the opposition is so powerfully rich. According to the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids tobacco companies spend $190 million per year in Michigan alone for advertising. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/TobaccoToll.php3?StateID=MI) Michigan’s current annual budget for tobacco prevention is around $7.5 million. In addition, they report that "published research studies have found that kids are three times more sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure, and that one-third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising." (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/TobaccoToll.php3?StateID=MI) So where would the state of Michigan get enough money to adequately fund a tobacco prevention program? The answer is simple, the tobacco companies.

Over the next twenty five years Michigan will receive from tobacco companies $8.5 billion. This money is a result of a November, 1998 settlement of a lawsuit against the nation’s largest tobacco companies filed by Michigan and 45 other states. The purpose of the lawsuit was to recover damages related to smoking. It was also "based on the states’ antitrust and consumer protection laws charging that the industry promoted the distribution and sale of products it knew to be harmful, concealing research that proved the addictive qualities of nicotine, while conspiring to keep potentially safer products off the market." (Operation Invest: Investing Tobacco Settlement Money in a Tobacco-Free Future for Michigan, Tobacco-Free Michigan Action Coalition, PO Box 25002, Lansing, Michigan 48909) Overwhelming scientific and medical consensus of the harmful effects of tobacco have finally been vindicated by this settlement. Although vindicated in their claims, this settlement will be a shallow victory for public health, and a major victory for the tobacco industry, if the intent of the settlement does not become the sentiments of our Governor and legislators.

The facts are clear, our kids are using tobacco and becoming addicted. Tobacco use is the most preventable cause of death and disease in the state. Even if you’re not a smoker, you may be interested to know that in Michigan, health care expenditures directly related to tobacco use are at $2.5 billion per year, which monetarily impacts smokers and non-smokers alike. (http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/TobaccoToll.php3?StateID=MI) You can see that this public health issue is a fairly simple one to understand, and through prevention and reduction efforts, its tragic effects can be reversed. So it seems only logical that the money we receive from the industry who caused the problem, would be the money we use to fix the problem. That’s how the public health community saw it and why they asked for a portion (25%) of the tobacco settlement money. Michigan residents agreed as well. A March 16-21 poll by EPIC/MRA of Lansing indicates that the public puts health care on the top of the list of investments for tobacco funds. But despite logic, expertise and public opinion, when it came time to decide how to spend Michigan’s tobacco settlement money, our Republican-led legislature and Governor quickly passed legislation to spend 75% of the money on Merit Scholarships (scholarships for kids who pass the MEAP and have no felony convictions) and the other 25% on a senior citizen prescription drug program and life-sciences research corridor. And this is the media issue that I chose to examine – While our Michigan legislature was deciding how to spend Michigan’s tobacco settlement money, did the two largest papers in the state, The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, adequately inform the public and protect the public interest?

As I embarked on this research, I thought it would help put things in perspective if I was to clarify the role of newspapers. I searched out the definition for journalism, and here is what I found:

With these parameters in mind, I now had a basis for judging The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press’ performance. I proceeded to do a search of all articles, briefs, editorials and letters to the editor which mention "tobacco settlement" from April 1, 1999, when discussions on how to spend the money began to surface, until July 1, 1999 when Governor John Engler had already signed the bills into law. That search produced 13 printed pieces from the The Detroit News and 23 printed pieces from the Detroit Free Press. I then pulled out any pieces that were not directly related to the tobacco settlement itself or the spending of the tobacco settlement money. That left 10 printed pieces from The Detroit News and 17 printed pieces from the Detroit Free Press. In The Detroit News, the 10 pieces were made up of 2 editorials (1 guest editorial and 1 Detroit News editorial), 1 brief, 2 letters to the editor and 5 articles. The Detroit Free Press’ 17 pieces were 6 editorials (3 guest editorials and 3 Detroit Free Press editorials), 5 briefs, 4 printings of letters to the editor (for a total of 9 letters), and 2 articles.

In an effort to stay as unbiased as possible, I set up a list of criteria, ten points in all, by which to fairly judge the newspaper coverage. I felt that if all these points were touched upon in an article, a reader with little knowledge of the issue would have the information he/she needs to be well informed. They were as follows:

If you consider just the criteria, then the first observation I have to make is that neither paper produced one piece that touched on all of the ten points. In the Detroit Free Press, if you read all 17 pieces (which I think is highly unlikely over a three month time period) you would have covered all ten criteria. However, if you had read all 10 pieces from The Detroit News you still would not have received all the information listed in the criteria because none of the 10 pieces mentioned health costs associated with tobacco use in Michigan. In fact the closest either paper came to meeting the criteria in any one piece is the Detroit Free Press at 80%, the highest score for The Detroit News was 60%.

With regard to headlines or bylines, The Detroit News’ headlines were all topical while the Detroit Free Press were only topical in 88% of the pieces. That is interesting because although The Detroit News headlines were eye catching, the information that followed was not very informative. For example, Michigan tobacco statistics got mentioned only one time by a reader in a letter to the editor, and it was published after the legislation had been signed. With Michigan having the fourth highest smoking rate in the country, that was an inexcusable omission on the part of The Detroit News. The Detroit Free Press did not have too much more to brag about in this area as they only mentioned Michigan tobacco statistics in 24% of the pieces – two were in editorials and two were in letters to the editor.

I feel that the intent of the tobacco settlement is one of the most important pieces to the whole issue. When the lawsuit was settled, our elected officials said the suit was aimed at protecting children from becoming addicted, and promised this money would be just a first step to reduce tobacco use, especially among children. The public assumed that a healthy portion of the settlement money would go to proven prevention programs. A statewide poll even confirmed this belief, and the letters to the editor from both papers (a total of 11 letters in all) were all in support, except one that had no opinion either way but whose point was that this was about power and money from the very beginning (which is an astute observation). All in all, protecting the public interest did not prevail at The Detroit News where intent of the settlement was only mentioned in 30% of the pieces (and one of those was a letter to the editor) and the statewide poll was only mentioned in 20% of the pieces. The Detroit Free Press was better at 65% mentioning the intent of the settlement (3 pieces were letters to the editor) but the statewide poll got mentioned only 6% of the time.

As far as keeping readers informed as to the status of legislation, The Detroit News reported the ongoing debate more often (60%) than the Detroit Free Press (24%). Although the Detroit Free Press did not report on the status of legislation as often as The Detroit News, when they did, it was well stated and at a time when constituents’ opinions to legislators would have mattered the most – that is, during the heat of the debate. The Detroit News on the other hand, reported in a May 31, 1999 article, that the debate "appears headed into the summer and beyond" (The Detroit News, May 31, 1999, Metro Section, Final Edition, Page A7) and yet the legislation was passed before summer even started. This was rather neglectful reporting on the part of The Detroit News. The Detroit Free Press was well aware of how quickly this issue was happening and even said so in a May 18, 1999 editorial stating "Gov. John Engler’s tuition program is on the fast track in the Legislature, in an apparent effort to sop up as much of the tobacco settlement as possible, before anyone can make a case for spending a few pennies on smoking prevention and health." (Detroit Free Press, May 18, 1999, Page 12A, Metro Final Edition, Section EDP; Editorial)

There were no outright lies in any of the pieces, but The Detroit News was not on a mission for the truth either. In the first article, they quoted Engler spokeswoman Susan Shafer who said "Massachusetts spends six times as much money as Michigan on anti-tobacco education, but more Boston teen-agers smoke than those in Detroit." (The Detroit News, April 1, 1999, Metro Section, Final Edition, Page D7) While it may be true that more Boston teenagers smoke than do Detroit teenagers, a reader should know that since Massachusetts began their tobacco prevention program, they have had a decrease in teen smoking while the rest of the country increased. Also, Massachusetts’ cigarette consumption on the whole has declined by 31% since 1992. Shame on The Detroit News for not clarifying that for readers. Also misleading was the only editorial that The Detroit News wrote, which was written after the fact, and states that "The distribution of the state’s share of national tobacco settlement money is askew." (The Detroit News, June 24, 1999, Opinion Section, Final Edition, Page A15) It then goes on to praise the Director of the Department of Community Health for the "aggressive $7.5 million anti-smoking campaign" (The Detroit News, June 24, 1999, Opinion Section, Final Edition, Page A15) he oversees. I think more correctly stated would be that he may be a good steward of his budget money, but $7.5 million will never combat tobacco’s $190 million advertising dollars spent in Michigan each year.

In the editorial department where newspapers have an opportunity to influence public opinion, the Detroit Free Press wins hands down. The first of 6 is a guest editorial from Governor Engler and Senator Abraham. The point of their editorial is to let Michigan citizens know that they are fighting the Clinton Administration who is trying to "seize" (Detroit Free Press, April 1, 1999, Metro Final Edition, Section EDP; Editorial, Page 11A) some of Michigan’s tobacco settlement money. They fail to explain that the federal government is required by law to claim a portion of the settlement because it paid more than half the Medicaid costs that the original lawsuits sought to recoup. Governor Engler and Senator Abraham also fail to mention that President Clinton offered to waive the federal claim if the states agree to spend a significant portion of the settlement money on anti-tobacco programs. It is in this editorial that Governor Engler introduces the idea of tobacco settlement money going for scholarships for students who pass the MEAP test. The Detroit Free Press one week later published their own editorial whose headline says it all "Tobacco Money: Companies Win If State Doesn’t Combat Smoking." (Detroit Free Press, April 6, 1999, Metro Final Edition, Section EDP; Editorial, Page 8A) The remaining four editorials from the Detroit Free Press were equally influencing and were published so that readers could voice their opinions to their legislators before a decision was made.

In an overall comparison, the Detroit Free Press did a better job than The Detroit News. Although both papers received check marks on the criteria, the Detroit Free Press provided much more valuable information in most of the areas, and did it over a sustained period of time. In contrast The Detroit News reported sporadically and provided the bare minimum in their reporting. Often their information was either misleading or missing information that would be relevant to the story.

The most revealing thing about the two papers was their approach to this issue. The Detroit News informed the public through articles and chose not to influence public opinion in editorials. The Detroit Free Press was just the opposite. They chose to influence public opinion, and in fact gave the most valuable information to their readers in their editorials. The unfortunate part of this is if you were a Detroit Free Press reader who never looked at the editorial page, then you would not have had a clue as to what was happening with the tobacco settlement money.

Looking at the three duties of a journalist that apply to the tobacco settlement issue, I would say that both papers informed the public of the issue. But only the Detroit Free Press attempted to protect the public interest and influence public opinion. And considering the enormity of the issue, I would rate their efforts as mediocre at best. The legislative process on the tobacco settlement money was a travesty of justice. Our legislators had the opportunity and the power to save millions of lives, prevent children from starting to smoke, break the cycle of addiction, and save money for Michigan residents and employers. It is probably safe to say that our state will never again be the recipient of such an enormous amount of money to address the largest public health issue in the country, and the two biggest newspapers in our state treated it like just another story. That is a sad commentary for journalism and a mockery of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Getting to the truth is an arduous task for the average citizen. Certainly these two papers did not ignore the situation, but they never attempted to get and/or give us the entire truth either. There was more to this story than reporting on the legislative process, and that is where our papers failed us miserably. The facts and information Michigan residents are entitled to know are more than likely the hardest ones for us to find out, which is why we depend on newspapers. Who asked the tough questions of our Governor and legislators? Questions like "Governor, how can you in good conscience ignore the intent of the tobacco settlement and not provide any tobacco settlement money for tobacco prevention and reduction? Or a question to Representative Perricone, Republican House Speaker "Are you afraid to reduce tobacco use in this state because that will risk the amount of money coming in from the tobacco settlement?" Another good question would be to health organizations, such as the American Cancer Society or the American Heart Association who were conspicuous by their absence in editorials and letters to the editor. A question to them might be, "Does your organization have anything to lose by publicly opposing the Governor on his proposal for the tobacco settlement money?" These are the kinds of questions the people of Michigan deserve to have answered. Getting to the truth is where this simple problem with a simple solution to save thousands of lives, gets very complex. For now all we can say to the kids of Michigan is "Millions of tobacco users died from cancer so you could attend college." (the late Bob Talbert, Detroit Free Press columnist, Detroit Free Press, June 21, 1999, Metro Final Edition, Features Section, Page 6E)