Individual versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness: Australian press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial

Melanie Wakefield, Kim McLeod, Katherine Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper provides a thematic frame analysis of Australian newspaper reporting of the outcome and implications of the trial of Rolah McCabe versus British American Tobacco Australasia (BATA). In this trial, a Melbourne woman was awarded A$700 000 damages for smoking-attributable lung cancer when the defendant, BATA, had its case dismissed due to document destruction. In 60 commentaries from Australian national or capital city newspapers between 12 April and 9 May 2002, a total of 79 instances of eight tobacco-related frames were identified. Overall, 43% of the 79 instances were positive for tobacco control, 46% were negative for tobacco control and 11% were neutral. The most common frame that was negative for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the conception that smokers exert 'free will' in deciding to smoke and should therefore be personally responsible for their smoking and any disease that arises as a result of it. A related, but less commonly employed frame (in 18% of articles) was the expressed fear of a 'slippery slope' of litigation, which portrayed smoking as similar to eating fast food or other 'vices'. The most common frame that was positive for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the notion that the tobacco industry was 'evil' and, to a lesser extent, that the government should 'do more' to control smoking (15% of articles). These findings provide a sobering public health challenge to improve public communication efforts about the powerful forces that conspire to induce people to start smoking and keep them smoking for decades, despite a strong desire to quit. There is a need to fund public education programs and quit smoking services more adequately to address the complex education task of understanding the nature of addiction to tobacco and the enormity of the health risk.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)297-305
Number of pages9
JournalHealth Promotion International
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

nicotine
Tobacco
smoking
illness
Smoking
coverage
responsibility
Australasia
Newspapers
newspaper
Tobacco Industry
Fast Foods
Education
Personal Autonomy
public communications
freedom of will
Jurisprudence
Financial Management
capital city
Smoke

Keywords

  • Frame analysis
  • Jurisprudence
  • Legislation
  • Media advocacy
  • Smoking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Individual versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness : Australian press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial. / Wakefield, Melanie; McLeod, Kim; Smith, Katherine.

In: Health Promotion International, Vol. 18, No. 4, 12.2003, p. 297-305.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{590d298b0b5b4903b0c0a9dae6dfe54c,
title = "Individual versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness: Australian press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial",
abstract = "This paper provides a thematic frame analysis of Australian newspaper reporting of the outcome and implications of the trial of Rolah McCabe versus British American Tobacco Australasia (BATA). In this trial, a Melbourne woman was awarded A$700 000 damages for smoking-attributable lung cancer when the defendant, BATA, had its case dismissed due to document destruction. In 60 commentaries from Australian national or capital city newspapers between 12 April and 9 May 2002, a total of 79 instances of eight tobacco-related frames were identified. Overall, 43{\%} of the 79 instances were positive for tobacco control, 46{\%} were negative for tobacco control and 11{\%} were neutral. The most common frame that was negative for tobacco control (in 35{\%} of articles) was the conception that smokers exert 'free will' in deciding to smoke and should therefore be personally responsible for their smoking and any disease that arises as a result of it. A related, but less commonly employed frame (in 18{\%} of articles) was the expressed fear of a 'slippery slope' of litigation, which portrayed smoking as similar to eating fast food or other 'vices'. The most common frame that was positive for tobacco control (in 35{\%} of articles) was the notion that the tobacco industry was 'evil' and, to a lesser extent, that the government should 'do more' to control smoking (15{\%} of articles). These findings provide a sobering public health challenge to improve public communication efforts about the powerful forces that conspire to induce people to start smoking and keep them smoking for decades, despite a strong desire to quit. There is a need to fund public education programs and quit smoking services more adequately to address the complex education task of understanding the nature of addiction to tobacco and the enormity of the health risk.",
keywords = "Frame analysis, Jurisprudence, Legislation, Media advocacy, Smoking",
author = "Melanie Wakefield and Kim McLeod and Katherine Smith",
year = "2003",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1093/heapro/dag413",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "297--305",
journal = "Health Promotion International",
issn = "0957-4824",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Individual versus corporate responsibility for smoking-related illness

T2 - Australian press coverage of the Rolah McCabe trial

AU - Wakefield, Melanie

AU - McLeod, Kim

AU - Smith, Katherine

PY - 2003/12

Y1 - 2003/12

N2 - This paper provides a thematic frame analysis of Australian newspaper reporting of the outcome and implications of the trial of Rolah McCabe versus British American Tobacco Australasia (BATA). In this trial, a Melbourne woman was awarded A$700 000 damages for smoking-attributable lung cancer when the defendant, BATA, had its case dismissed due to document destruction. In 60 commentaries from Australian national or capital city newspapers between 12 April and 9 May 2002, a total of 79 instances of eight tobacco-related frames were identified. Overall, 43% of the 79 instances were positive for tobacco control, 46% were negative for tobacco control and 11% were neutral. The most common frame that was negative for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the conception that smokers exert 'free will' in deciding to smoke and should therefore be personally responsible for their smoking and any disease that arises as a result of it. A related, but less commonly employed frame (in 18% of articles) was the expressed fear of a 'slippery slope' of litigation, which portrayed smoking as similar to eating fast food or other 'vices'. The most common frame that was positive for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the notion that the tobacco industry was 'evil' and, to a lesser extent, that the government should 'do more' to control smoking (15% of articles). These findings provide a sobering public health challenge to improve public communication efforts about the powerful forces that conspire to induce people to start smoking and keep them smoking for decades, despite a strong desire to quit. There is a need to fund public education programs and quit smoking services more adequately to address the complex education task of understanding the nature of addiction to tobacco and the enormity of the health risk.

AB - This paper provides a thematic frame analysis of Australian newspaper reporting of the outcome and implications of the trial of Rolah McCabe versus British American Tobacco Australasia (BATA). In this trial, a Melbourne woman was awarded A$700 000 damages for smoking-attributable lung cancer when the defendant, BATA, had its case dismissed due to document destruction. In 60 commentaries from Australian national or capital city newspapers between 12 April and 9 May 2002, a total of 79 instances of eight tobacco-related frames were identified. Overall, 43% of the 79 instances were positive for tobacco control, 46% were negative for tobacco control and 11% were neutral. The most common frame that was negative for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the conception that smokers exert 'free will' in deciding to smoke and should therefore be personally responsible for their smoking and any disease that arises as a result of it. A related, but less commonly employed frame (in 18% of articles) was the expressed fear of a 'slippery slope' of litigation, which portrayed smoking as similar to eating fast food or other 'vices'. The most common frame that was positive for tobacco control (in 35% of articles) was the notion that the tobacco industry was 'evil' and, to a lesser extent, that the government should 'do more' to control smoking (15% of articles). These findings provide a sobering public health challenge to improve public communication efforts about the powerful forces that conspire to induce people to start smoking and keep them smoking for decades, despite a strong desire to quit. There is a need to fund public education programs and quit smoking services more adequately to address the complex education task of understanding the nature of addiction to tobacco and the enormity of the health risk.

KW - Frame analysis

KW - Jurisprudence

KW - Legislation

KW - Media advocacy

KW - Smoking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0348148756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0348148756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/heapro/dag413

DO - 10.1093/heapro/dag413

M3 - Article

C2 - 14695361

AN - SCOPUS:0348148756

VL - 18

SP - 297

EP - 305

JO - Health Promotion International

JF - Health Promotion International

SN - 0957-4824

IS - 4

ER -