ABC News doesn't apologize to Philip Morris tobacco in 1995?

ABC ISSUES APOLOGY FOR TOBACCO REPORT

Washington Post, John Schwartz, Aug. 22, 1995

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-report/58ca2d34-c86c-4b44-b4d9-391f7e25ef85/

"We now agree that we should not have reported that Philip Morris and Reynolds add significant amounts of nicotine from outside sources," the company said in a lengthy statement read by anchor Diane Sawyer on the evening news broadcast. ABC agreed to read the statement during its "Monday Night Football" program last night and on Thursday's "Day One" program, where the allegations were made.
What if instead ABC News holds tough, and in fact, continues journalism on the big tobacco companies! :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-report/58ca2d34-c86c-4b44-b4d9-391f7e25ef85/

Some ABC News staffers have been upset about the planned settlement, arguing that the broadcast was essentially correct and that parent company Capital Cities Communications Inc. should not cave in to Philip Morris. But top ABC executives were worried that embarrassing disclosures could emerge in a trial on Philip Morris's home turf of Richmond. They first offered a proposed apology in June, weeks before the discussions that led to the network's being acquired by Walt Disney Co.
Ah, trying to get the ducks in order before a merger.

Yeah, I'd say this illustrates one of the dangers of a news company being owned by a parent company . . . which is not all that into news.
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-report/58ca2d34-c86c-4b44-b4d9-391f7e25ef85/

' . . . Though the broadcast never stated directly that the companies add more nicotine than is present in natural tobacco leaf, the tobacco company contended loudly that it did not do so. . . '

' . . . The network said that the "mistake" in the February 1994 "Day One" broadcast did not detract from the "principal focus" of the report, which ABC said was whether the tobacco companies use a process for making "reconstituted tobacco" to "control the levels of nicotine in cigarettes in order to keep people smoking." . . . '
To me, this is defendable. If you feel it's necessary, you make a clarification the next time you talk about the issue, and you keep moving forward.

And if you're worried about facing a jury in Richmond, Virginia, do a little digging and you might find people are not real happy about the employment practices of Philip Morris or the way they've treated area farmers. Yeah, a big company is often disliked for more than one reason.

Heck, you may decide you don't even want to file a motion for a change of venue.
 
What if tobacco won a libel suit and there not master agregement?
Whereas I usually like to dance high trajectory,

sure, we can dance this one, too. Big media is already disliked for quirky, subtle, and not-so-subtle reasons, and this can play out in various ways. Yes, we certainly can imagine a conflict in which big media is viewed as the relative "bad guy" and big tobacco as the relative "good guy." :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:
https://www.lung.org/about-us/blog/2018/11/anniversary-of-tobacco-msa.html

" . . . In Fiscal Year 2018, the states collected $27.5 billion from tobacco settlement payments and taxes. But they will spend less than 3 percent of it – $721.6 million – on programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit. . . "
Now, if I was a governor or a member of a state legislature, sure, I'd take the money. Of course, I'd take the money!

However, in the best of all worlds, Marlboro, Camel, and the rest would be a declining industry in ill health (cough, cough!!) so to speak. Meaning, we don't want to be dependent on the money.

And oh yes, silver lining, I don't believe preaching a negative is all that effective. Heck, at times, almost seems singularly ineffective, at least as far as when someone harps on a negative. This might even be true for space aliens if we ever meet any!

upload_2019-10-9_16-55-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
However, in the best of all worlds, Marlboro, Camel, and the rest would be a declining industry in ill health (cough, cough!!) so to speak. Meaning, we don't want to be dependent on the money.
And now kids user even more dangerous e-cigarettes...

Maybe everyone should cultivate his own tobacco anyway
 
And now kids user even more dangerous e-cigarettes...
And the fact that it’s a recent health scare, I think shows that it’s rational to worry about health scares, at least at first (even though admittedly, yes, absolutely no question, people do go overboard). Because heck, with a new health scare, a lot more people may end up getting sick.

For example, maybe there’s bacterial contamination in the vape liquid which runs real risk of pneumonia. Or maybe . . . there’s some chemical which coats the small aveolar sacs deep in the lungs.

But, the issue did not cascade, and the numbers did not spike. Still an issue, but more of a steady, constant issue. All the same, I’m still going to say it was not alarmism to worry it.

———

The whole thing is a shame, because I did have hopes that e-cigs would prove healthier than regular ones (even though there’s no way in hell that WHO, Harvard, New England Journal of Medicine, or any other big name would use the word “healthier”!)
 
Last edited:
Tobacco industry was just stupid in the way they dealt with media during the time. Instead of straight up lying and giving false ads they should have just focused towards things that people like about the product and avoid anything related to health as much as possible. They can actually make a strong case about it being unconstitutional or unfair for them not being able to advertise. It hard to say they can’t advertise like beer can. It’s a double standard and hypocritical. If tobacco industry was smart they would have depicted any possible censorship or ban of their advertising as “communist” during this time and attack left opposition hard during 80s. You can’t argue cigarettes aren’t bad for you but you can depict as a luxury any grown person should be able to enjoy if they want too. The issue isn’t ABC holding out. The issue is narrative they tried to push. Straight up lying destroys your credibility.
 
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-19-mn-59626-story.html?_amp=true

‘ . . . B & W spent an additional $687,000 for “special placements” arranged by Associated Film in a variety of movies--including $100,000 apiece for “Where the Boys Are” and “Harry & Son,” both 1984 releases, and $50,000 for the Clint Eastwood picture “Killing Ground,” released in 1983 as “Sudden Impact.” . . . ’

‘ . . . B & W [Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.] officials were not sure they were getting their money’s worth, . . . ’

‘ . . . with “Only When I Laugh.” That film included “a blurred pack of Kool,” but “the lead character . . . smoked Marlboro throughout the movie.” . . . ’
First off, that’s a real shame if Brown & Williamson didn’t get their money’s worth! :p

And of course, product placement is a huge issue. With the Master Settlement of 1998, tobacco companies agreed to stop the practice. But knowing human nature and knowing how institutions work, please excuse me if I still have some doubts.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure it would have made too much of a difference. Big Tobacco manipulating nicotine levels was already well known.
Meaning, most likely ABC would have won the lawsuit, even with average lawyering.

But it wasn’t a news decision.

It was a parent corporation decision to solve a “problem.” Right about the time ABC could have gearing up to compete with CNN and esp. Fox as bolder, braver, more swashbuckling, etc, (never really true with Fox, but that was the perception). But again, not the main concern of either Capital Cities nor Disney.
 
. . . Instead of straight up lying and giving false ads they should have just focused towards things that people like about the product and avoid anything related to health as much as possible. They can actually make a strong case about it being unconstitutional or unfair for them not being able to advertise. It hard to say they can’t advertise like beer can. It’s a double standard and hypocritical. If tobacco industry was smart they would have depicted any possible censorship or ban of their advertising as “communist” . . .
Or, better yet, simply imply it.

Now, if I had my druthers, we'd go the other way. Pass legislation making tobacco sales illegal, but making exceptions for certain named companies. And you appoint a judge, or committee, or special master, etc, who has to sign off on any operational changes. And, if we end up with a boring, stagnant business along the lines of a utility, well, that's exactly what we're looking for! Books are wide open, so we will see if any money is going for product placement. (Online product placement is another wide open universe which is hard to get a handle on -- unless the books of the tobacco company are wide open).

Just to make it perfectly clear, I'm all in favor of free speech for movie companies. They can make smoking as villainous, as sexy, as whatever!, as they can possibly wish. They just can't accept product placement money. And since movie companies are often disorganized on the financial side, it's so much easier to supervise the tobacco companies.

In a sense, we'd be calling tobacco companies on their bluff.

For a season, they seemed to love to say, hey, you can make tobacco illegal any time you want (which they know we weren't going to do), but while it's legal we have the same rights to advertise as any other business. Fine, since you bring it up, we're going to declare you a quasi-legal business, and we will regulate you. Maybe the artful way is that the previous legal advertising like magazine ads stay the same but slowly fade away, going to every other month, then every third month. Same text, same picture, almost like it's an artifact from the past.
 
Last edited:
Or, better yet, simply imply it.

Now, if I had my druthers, we'd go the other way. Pass legislation making tobacco sales illegal, but making exceptions for certain named companies. And you appoint a judge, or committee, or special master, etc, who has to sign off on any operational changes. And, if we end up with a boring, stagnant business along the lines of a utility, well, that's exactly what we're looking for! Books are wide open, so we will see if any money is going for product placement. (Online product placement is another wide open universe which is hard to get a handle on -- unless the books of the tobacco company are wide open).

Just to make it perfectly clear, I'm all in favor of free speech for movie companies. They can make smoking as villainous, as sexy, as whatever!, as they possibly wish. They just can't accept product placement money. And since movie companies are often disorganized on the financial side, it's so much easier to supervise the tobacco companies.

In a sense, we'd be calling tobacco companies on their bluff.

For a season, they seemed to love to say, hey, you can make tobacco illegal any time you want (which they know we weren't going to do), but while it's legal we have the same rights to advertise as any other business. Fine, since you bring it up, we're going to declare you a quasi-legal business, and we will regulate you. Maybe the artful way is that the previous legal advertising like magazine ads stay the same but slowly fade away, going to every other month, then every third month. Same text, same picture, almost like it's an artifact from the past.
People will do what they want at end of the day with vices like this. Many people just like this stuff. If you ever look at a Arab smoking cart they have big skull and bone death on their warning that’s printed in all bold. One even had a coffin on it. But they still smoke way more then Americans and many other groups.
 
People will do what they want at end of the day with vices like this. . .
I’ll see you one vice and raise you another. ;)

b527b2dabac0c5c793dfe32b6a4e23bf.gif

Here’s Lucy Liu in the first Charlie’s Angels movie (2000), in which she pretends to be a business consultant, complete with riding crop!

Maybe it’s just that nerds are earlier adopters of technology. Or perhaps . . . there really is some correlation between being a nerd and liking dominant-submissive sex play.

2fcdc46b93bf3057cfc99ac25c7df1ec.jpg
 
Last edited:
So, I think I’m pretty accepting of the human experience, including vices and borderline vices.

Not all that interested in goody two-shoes and nanny state.

Am highly interested in how a robustly anti-corporate approach might play out, both among the general public and longer term as legislation.
 
Last edited:
Top