Contrary to a much publicized announcement last May, Hollywood#'s rating system fails to warn parents that most movies feature smoking. Young audiences around the world are still being bombarded with billions of tobacco impressions every time an actor lights up. This isn#,t a matter of personal taste or censorship. It#,s a major public health challenge. The tobacco industry rakes in $4 billion in lifetime sales through Hollywood movies that recruit kids to smoke every year.
Since the major studios still won#,t take action, the community must.
As a first step, this newspaper can start including tobacco content in movie listings.
In the six months following the Motion Picture Association#,s announcement that it #&considers#8 smoking when rating movies,#8 Hollywood movies delivered an estimated 11 billion tobacco impressions to theater audiences.
Second, the rest of us can write the studios#, parent companies - Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, and Viacom#*and tell them to stop recruiting 390,000 new teen smokers a year for the tobacco industry. By demanding that all future movies with smoking be rated #&R,#8 this would treat tobacco use as seriously as it treats use of the “F-word.#8
The week of Feb. 18-22 is the International Week of Action, when kids and their parents in more than a dozen countries around the world will protest America#,s most toxic export #* blockbuster movies with tobacco imagery that arrives on screens without warning. Tobacco will kill 5 million people worldwide. That number is expected to double unless tobacco promotion is halted #- including tobacco product placement in the movies we love.
Tim Haskins, Ashley Cifaratta
and Niomi McNabb
Auburn High School
These students are members of Reality Check and speak on behalf of the group
As a first step, this newspaper can start including tobacco content in movie listings.
In the six months following the Motion Picture Association#,s announcement that it #&considers#8 smoking when rating movies,#8 Hollywood movies delivered an estimated 11 billion tobacco impressions to theater audiences.
Second, the rest of us can write the studios#, parent companies - Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, and Viacom#*and tell them to stop recruiting 390,000 new teen smokers a year for the tobacco industry. By demanding that all future movies with smoking be rated #&R,#8 this would treat tobacco use as seriously as it treats use of the “F-word.#8
The week of Feb. 18-22 is the International Week of Action, when kids and their parents in more than a dozen countries around the world will protest America#,s most toxic export #* blockbuster movies with tobacco imagery that arrives on screens without warning. Tobacco will kill 5 million people worldwide. That number is expected to double unless tobacco promotion is halted #- including tobacco product placement in the movies we love.
Tim Haskins, Ashley Cifaratta
and Niomi McNabb
Auburn High School
These students are members of Reality Check and speak on behalf of the group
The Citizens' Say
There are 12 comment(s)
karl L wrote on Feb 19, 2008 11:44 AM:
Smoking in movies is indeed a well-known and oft-used vehicle for showing stress in a movie. It's the same as a scene in which a girl would see a guy down the hall whom she's attracted to, and she makes sure to steal a glance in the mirror to check herself, and then you realize that she's interested in that guy.
As such, it sends a signal about what constitutes a "normal response" to a stressful situation. Kids see that, and it registers, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Additionally, in movies about asocial loners or anti-establishment heroes,--sheer enchantment to some teens--the anti-hero is often portrayed rebelliously pulling a drag with turned-up collar, looking "cool" and "rebellious", ala James Dean.
If you don't think kids are affected by and influenced by portrayals like that, then I suggest that you don't know kids... "
jpolansky wrote on Feb 19, 2008 11:17 AM:
http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu
The evidence linking exposure to on-screen smoking to teens' starting to smoke is as strong as the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. The R-rating is the most effective, least-intrusive policy solution yet proposed. Is the current rating system censorship? The film industry itself would disagree with you. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Feb 18, 2008 2:33 PM:
I did order it, let me see if it has arrived....
Not yet -- ordered on 28 Jan, but not yet rec'd. I think I'll ask for a notification as soon as it comes in.
Thanks for the reminder. "
AJ wrote on Feb 17, 2008 11:25 PM:
pinging FG...
FG, I was wondering if you rec'd and had a chance to look at Naomi Wolf's book, and what you thought of it. I remember you said you were going to order it if I am not mistaken.
take care
"
AJ wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:06 PM:
"
AJ wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:00 PM:
brew1234 wrote on Feb 17, 2008 8:40 PM:
jpolansky wrote on Feb 17, 2008 4:34 PM:
Next the online nits who get beer money from corporate PR firms for every online blurt will start claiming that stopping a mercury polluter violates "freedom of commercial havoc."
The research showing that exposure to tobacco imagery in movies leads kids to smoke is as solid as the research that says smoking causes lung cancer. (Of course, the tobacco industry spent years ridiculing that, too.) And the movie research just confirms what the tobacco industry already knows — it's spent millions to get its product on the movie screen, since it can't advertise on TV.
These young people are seeing through the corrupt, cynical manipulation that hooks one in five of their friends to smoke. Give them some credit and get the facts before your knee jerks.
"
Yikes wrote on Feb 17, 2008 1:44 PM:
This film has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America due to unhealthy eating habits depicted in the film which may lead to obesity and heart disease. (Ha, Hh, Ic, Ff, Eg, Tw, Sd, Pc, Ck)
Legend:
Hamburgers
Ho Hos
Ice Cream
French Fries
Eggs
Twinkies
Soda
Potato Chips
Cookies
"
Leon Kapowski wrote on Feb 17, 2008 11:51 AM:
AJ wrote on Feb 17, 2008 1:03 AM:
Tim Haskins, Ashley Cifaratta,
and Niomi McNabb, this is obviously a noble goal, but a dangerous and woefully misguided one, imho.
Civil liberties are under extreme attack as it stands, and now you want to tread on a Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech?
I think the creators of media have the right to make their product as they see fit, with the following caveat \wrt smoking - I might draw the line at gratuitous cigarette use influenced in some way by the tobacco companies themselves. (I don't believe the tobacco companies should enjoy free speech as individual rights since they are not "Real" people.) And besides, cigarette smoking is a fact of life, and you'll never eradicate it by shoving it under the rug. You may end up burning the house down if you try.
You're advocating going down a more slippery slope that we are already on. Maybe you should work on education outreach? I don't think though you'll find it too difficult to notice that info relative to the health effects of smoking is already abundant, and that the rate of smokers diminishes each year and is now at its lowest level ever as a result( < 30% now vs >60% in the 50's - 80's, roughly )
I am against violence, but I would not advocate censoring violence in movies.
Free Speech should not be tampered with and there are other things you could do to acheive your goals.
You seem to be very conscientious and apparently involved young citizens. which is highly commendable, and I hope you continue to be. I also hope you rethink this issue and view it in a broader perspective which takes free speech into account, and put your energies more productive efforts. Democracy depends on this.
"
brew1234 wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:57 PM: