* It happens more often than you think–and more often than we point out. It is the contrasting treatment given the same news item by media outlets, notably our two dailies. And it has nothing to do with whose investigative-journalism team initiated it. It has everything to do with news judgment. Case in point: The first measure passed by Florida legislative committees (in preparation for the 2016 session) is a bill that allows concealed weapons at colleges and universities.
The Tampa Bay Times accorded it front-page, above-the-fold placement in the Local section. The Tampa Tribune gave it a three-graph, page-four “Briefly” placement in the Metro section.
* While paging through the October issue of Southern Living, I glanced at the full-page, color ad for Natural American Spirit cigarettes. The print ad copy as well as the colorful box with the silhouetted Indian prominently noted that it was “100% additive-free natural tobacco.” Also underscored: the tobacco was “organic.” What’s not to like? And a special $2-a-pack price.
How presumably tempting–if you don’t read any of the obligatory product disclaimers. One says: “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” Oh. Another acknowledges that “Organic tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” Alas. And then there’s the all-too-familiar, beyond-blunt Surgeon General’s Warning: “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.” What a drag.
And yet, as we know, such tobacco products continue to enjoy a growing market.
Maybe an even better disclaimer alert is, inexplicably, still needed. If so, I’d suggest a peer pressure, product-labeling strategy. Maybe a boldly lettered “I’m-a-dumb-ass-for-being-so-easily-misled-into-buying-this-misrepresented-hardly-harmless-product” approach. Maybe that would work. Maybe.