Assuming that the point of this thread is to gain some understanding of
why media coverage is such
(as opposed to just griping about it), here are my
- based on the hundreds of stories that I read every week for my daily media roundups:
***
Most of the pieces are written by local reporters. They know essentially nothing about the topic, and are mislead by the word
cigarette and/or the images that they find which show people "smoking" e-
cigarettes.. (Those huge clouds
must be dangerous, right?)
Therefore, they begin the process of writing the article with powerful preconceived subconscious notions about the relationship between vaping and smoking. To put it simply,
they're predisposed to think of vaping as just another kind of smoking. While I don't have any statistical/scientific data to support this conclusion, it wouldn't be hard to get: just analyze the way words are used in the articles. No matter how many vapers they interview, they'll continue to use the
language in a way that blurs the distinction between the two.
For example, some articles refer to vapers who are "lighting" PVs. More frequently, you'll read about
smoking PVs. So the ANTZ view (which is that
vaping is smoking, period) is subtly reflected in most paragraphs of the story.
The reporters really just can't help themselves. Have you ever met someone from another country who thinks that America is full of
cowboys and gangsters? It's a bit like that: if you don't know anything about a subject, then it's easy to take the few facts that you do know (or think you know), and then use them as "broad brush" generalizations.
***
Now the stage is set. They don't have much time to churn out this article. It might be one of several pieces that they have to write that day. All they know about vaping is that it's just another kind of smoking. (And smoking is a dangerous menace to society ... not to mention the fact that smokers are filthy, immoral, and downright stinky. 8-o)
So what do they do?
First, they Google. Since there are so many anti-vaping articles out there, it should come as no surprise that they pick up the first junk science that they run across (typically the FDA '09 study). Now, of course, they're getting scared. Wow, what
are these things? Could they be
even worse than smoking?? After speed-reading a few of these articles, they cut-and-paste out a few (junk science) factoids.
Next, it's time to consult the responsible authorities. The more sedulous reporters might visit the American Cancer Society or American Lung ...'n web sites - or even call one of these org's rep.s for a comment. Or they might call their local or state Tobacco Control Office. Health Dep't? Sure, why not. Perhaps they even know another local ANTZ who works in a state- or locally-funded cessation program. Well, it's pretty obvious what sorts of things the reporter's going to learn, right?
If we're
lucky, they might call a local vape store owner (assuming there is one). Who will naturally tell them all kinds of good things. But by this point - it's too late. They've already heard the junk. They've read that "e-cigarettes
contain ... " (fill in the blank). They know that the FDA and the CDC have
"fears." They've heard that there are
"unknowns." Local health officials are
concerned.
Wow, that's a good story right there.
Concerns, fears, and unknowns ... plus FDA '09 to boot. (You know, the old diethelyne glycol thing?)
And if FDA '09 isn't used, there are plenty of other junk studies out there which local or national ANTZ will cite. "Ineffective cessation tool?" Okay write that down. "Possibly more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes?" Got that down in the reporter's notebook, too. Or perhaps they're even typing in the story as they speak to the local ANTZ. (And if that weren't enough, what about all those kids who are getting supposedly hooked on tobacco cigarettes by starting with the e-cigarettes? The poison control center calls? Fires started by battery chargers? And so on,
ad nauseum.)
It's worth noting again that there is no "conspiracy" here - the local reporters are just doing what they know how to do best. It's not
their job to question the "experts." Reporters simply
report what the experts
say, in a way that's heavily-influenced by the reporter's own ignorance and preconcieved biases.
Done! Now it's on to the next story ... just a half-dozen more like that to write today ...
***
BTW it's worth mentioning that there's a second type of story out there. Those are the ones written by "people with letters after their names." I'm talking about local MDs, toxicologists, smoking cessation "experts," etc. These folks ought to know better. But in many cases - they're paid
not to. Now we can talk a little bit about funding, conspiracy, conflicts of interest, and so forth. It's no paranoid fantasy: there's a multi-billion dollar Tobacco Control industry out there, well-funded by a combination of the '98 settlement with the Tobacco companies, BP, and of course ... your tax dollars (at work).
But these are the folks who usually
spoon-feed the junk science to the media - it's rare for them to come out front and write the articles themselves. Yet when they do, their "hit job" pieces are typically even worse than what ignorant cub reporters churn out in half an hour.
***
Finally, it's important to remember that the
quality news outlets don't stand for any of this nonsense (for the most part). With a very few exceptions, it's rare to find pieces in the two categoies that I've just described in a publication like the Times, the Post, the Economist, WSJ, or whatever. Those publications hire well-educated reporters and give them time to write their stories. They probably also have reporters who specialize in the areas (e.g. health) who aren't coming to the process of writing with a head full of myths, rumors, and half-baked ideas.
That said, the vast majority of articles that you're going to read come under the first category. They're written by ignorant cub reporters who have no idea what they're talking about, and who "do their homework" by consulting the "experts" from the Tobacco Control Industry.
***
We don't have to stand there and just take this
1) Tell everyone you know about the fact that you vape, and that you've used vaping to either quit smoking, or vastly reduce your smoking.
2) Hit back in the comments section when you read these stories, or (better) e-mail a letter to the editor. (Those are
especially effective if you live in the media outlet's geographical area, and tell your personal story.)
3) Join CASAA, or some other pro-vaping organization.
More people turn to vaping every day. And more of us quit smoking every day. Eventually the climate will change - because we've all taken action.
Don't just sit around and gripe.
