Why ?

[paul0001]

It's easy to understand why the government is anti-vaping, in Australia a 50g pouch of tobacco costs over $50 and cigarettes are about $1 each. It is also easy to understand why pharmaceutical companies with their own products are anti-vaping as are the various heart, lung, cancer groups they payroll. What I am curious about is why are the general media anti-vaping, what is their angle, what's in it for them ?
Any enlightenment appreciated.

 

[Nermal]

I suspect they will print whatever sells best - barring political interests of the publisher.

 

[sofarsogood]

If there is an industry in pain right now it's news media but regardless of that they have to report topics that interest people and they have to somehow maintain suspense indefinitely. That's why news stories almost never give any resolution or true insight into anything. Once you get the story figured out you might lose interest in reading more stories. My champion for real news reporting these days,, news without propaganda, is Crain's Business news in michigan.

 

[paul0001]

That's where it (whatever sells most) doesn't add up. I would imagine all the conflicting facts/propaganda would create a lot of interest (sales) but the general media seems to be blatantly one-sided. Eg. global warming is generally presented from different angles to produce sales.

 

[paul0001]

From your comment and what might be an optimistic view is that the media are aware of vaping eventually replacing smoking and are therefore getting as much mileage (sales) as possible by delaying it through negative press as opposed to being on side, everybody switching and the story (sales) disappearing. Interesting angle.
I will have a look at Crains Business News, thanks.

 

[pgscott]

Selling the story of big evil tobacco companies trying to addict a whole new generation of people is an easy sell - because everyone believes it, even smokers, even vapers believe this story. It is a very successful story propagated by public health over many years - basically it is orthodox position of civil society.

Selling the story of public health misleading the public on the other hand is much harder, requires much more work, more research, more checking of facts.

To sell people a new idea is much harder than selling them a customary one.

So the answer to your question is quite simple: selling the second story is much more time consuming, requiring much more of a newspapers resources and effort. Hence they go with the easy option, it saves them time and resources. They get away with it because most people don't care about smokers.

 

[Train2]

Bad news is more marketable than good news.

What's a more exciting story to get people watching?:

"E-cigarettes are exploding left and right, killing innocent children!!"
or
"E-cigarettes seem to be harmless, taste good, and are helping lots of people quit smoking."

They don't do news alerts about traffic flowing smoothly on the interstate - but they'll cover an accident or a road rage incident...

 

[Kent C]

Why?? .....Any enlightenment appreciated.

The 'news media' as it existed in the past with journalist who dug deep, doesn't exist anymore. They lie and plagiarize and get Pulitzer Prizes. They are - as one particular insightful radio host has said - the "administration's steno pool" - just copying, printing and voicing those lines without question. And then demonizing anyone who disagrees.

The longer explanation has to do with them going to same universities where the curricula is anti-American, pro-socialist (actually fascist in the US) with all the junk science grants from the gov't and where the only 'solutions' are more government programs (and grants). The 'solution' to the 'new Ice Age' (pushed by some of the same people who are now 'climate change' advocates) in the 70's was more socialistic policies. The solution to Global Warming is..... more socialist policies. The only constant of these opposite viewpoints on weather, is the solution! D'uh....
The propaganda is complete - from pre-pre school (pre-school wasn't early enough) through doctorate. So... the "journalists" have the same viewpoint as the gov't entities they report on.

Hope that helps.

 

[Anjaffm]

The 'news media' as it existed in the past with journalist who dug deep, doesn't exist anymore. They lie and plagiarize and get Pulitzer Prizes. They are - as one particular insightful radio host has said - the "administration's steno pool" - just copying, printing and voicing those lines without question. And then demonizing anyone who disagrees.

The longer explanation has to do with them going to same universities where the curricula is anti-American, pro-socialist (actually fascist in the US) with all the junk science grants from the gov't and where the only 'solutions' are more government programs (and grants). The 'solution' to the 'new Ice Age' (pushed by some of the same people who are now 'climate change' advocates) in the 70's was more socialistic policies. The solution to Global Warming is..... more socialist policies. The only constant of these opposite viewpoints on weather, is the solution! D'uh....
The propaganda is complete - from pre-pre school (pre-school wasn't early enough) through doctorate. So... the "journalists" have the same viewpoint as the gov't entities they report on.

Hope that helps.

absolutely!

Add to that the fact that the media print / show / hype what pleases their advertisers (think pharma dollars, lots of money to be made on the treatment of sick smokers) - and you got the whole picture.

 

[WattWick]

I'm sure they get roughly 14 million press releases about the ill effects of vaping for every positive one. Which, even ignoring any conspiracy, makes a ton of difference. Businesses have been built on flooding the media with press releases about virtually anything. If it doesn't get printed; re-write it and send off again.

One such venture over here in Norway had an estimatet 2 billion (NOK) worth of free print over the span of 2 years. Like 7 articles on print, in some obscure local paper or the national ones, each and every day. Their product was as simple as can be: Phone subscriptions. (Halfway making up these numbers from poor memory. The point remains the same.)

And this is part of what our opposition is doing. They know they need to flood the media. Even with half truths and blatant lies. Doesn't matter. Press time is all.

 

[Jman8]

It's easy to understand why the government is anti-vaping, in Australia a 50g pouch of tobacco costs over $50 and cigarettes are about $1 each. It is also easy to understand why pharmaceutical companies with their own products are anti-vaping as are the various heart, lung, cancer groups they payroll. What I am curious about is why are the general media anti-vaping, what is their angle, what's in it for them ?
Any enlightenment appreciated.

Group think. Don't underestimate the power of this.
Equals more subscribers (more advertising dollars) and more readers of their opinion pages, which may help influence local policies.
All politics are local.

 

[Kent C]

absolutely!

Add to that the fact that the media print / show / hype what pleases their advertisers (think pharma dollars, lots of money to be made on the treatment of sick smokers) - and you got the whole picture.

Not so much for MSNBC, NYTimes, Wash.Post, Newsweek and a few others where reader/viewership is down to where bankruptcy is just around the corner, or has been on several occasions, and has been the result for other publications. Due in large part by what I posted above - content and bias.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

Money, as many said above. City councils, states, the Feds, all want it. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma want to have control for the money.

As a poor group, we just have to be an example and tell people our story of success. Writing that for the local Opinion page in the newspaper, and any newspaper for that matter. Also, local, state, and federal legislators should know of the success.

We don't have professional people to fight, but we do have our own success stories.

 

[Anjaffm]

Not so much for MSNBC, NYTimes, Wash.Post, Newsweek and a few others where reader/viewership is down to where bankruptcy is just around the corner, or has been on several occasions, and has been the result for other publications. Due in large part by what I posted above - content and bias.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the former (!) quality press having descended into the realm once occupied by the likes of the National Enquirer.
Same in Germany. You would not believe the trash that is being published by former (!) quality newspapers and former (!) quality magazines. And they expect readers to PAY for copy and paste low (or rather: no) quality junk? Seriously?

Same in the UK. Here I mentioned a piece of absolute propaganda junk that was published in The Guardian. A formerly (!) well respected quality newspaper. Formerly.
Thankfully, The Guardian also published a thorough debunking of this crap by Professor Bauld (same link)

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, I know what you mean about the former (!) quality press having descended into the realm once occupied by the likes of the National Enquirer.
Same in Germany. You would not believe the trash that is being published by former (!) quality newspapers and former (!) quality magazines. And they expect readers to PAY for copy and paste low (or rather: no) quality junk? Seriously?

Same in the UK. Here I mentioned a piece of absolute propaganda junk that was published in The Guardian. A formerly (!) well respected quality newspaper. Formerly.
Thankfully, The Guardian also published a thorough debunking of this crap by Professor Bauld (same link)

At one point in time I had subscriptions from the Guardian and the Economist - fun times a while ago though....

 

[DrMA]

I was moved by this comment on that Guardian piece linked by Anja above. What a sad and powerful message that the once a respectable field of Public Health has been hijacked by greedy arrogant sociopaths hellbent on world domination at any cost. The sad part is the few legitimate PH members that remain and The Public know it.

 

[DC2]

Selling the story of big evil tobacco companies trying to addict a whole new generation of people is an easy sell - because everyone believes it, even smokers, even vapers believe this story. It is a very successful story propagated by public health over many years - basically it is orthodox position of civil society.

Selling the story of public health misleading the public on the other hand is much harder, requires much more work, more research, more checking of facts.

To sell people a new idea is much harder than selling them a customary one.

So the answer to your question is quite simple: selling the second story is much more time consuming, requiring much more of a newspapers resources and effort. Hence they go with the easy option, it saves them time and resources. They get away with it because most people don't care about smokers.

This. And sensationalism sells. And Big Pharma advertising.

 

[WickedSick]

There was a long need of a new close to home Boogie-Man. The Ebola is in Africa, ISIS in the Middle East. But a good ol' fashioned scare is alwasy good to keep them printing presses runnin'...