ABC News: Battle Lines Drawn in War Over Smoking

Judged:

1

Cincy Steve wrote:

IMO this is a very biased newscast...

Judged:

1

1

1

the truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you mean the ABC newscast in general,or are you refering to this particular story? Can you give some examples?

Judged:

1

1

1

History Buff wrote:

I tried to send the following to ABC and got tired of jumping the 'ropes'.
I find it rather shocking that you do not report THE NEWS.
Facts are that the foundation who paid for the smoking bans by giving grants for them to the American Cancer Society, is the same who funded negative research to fit 'THEIR agenda'. They are also the ones who gain from the sale of the no-smoke products.
There's nothing like an industry that can create bans for their own profits. Either you are really dense or you are in their pocket.

Judged:

1

just candid wrote:

Back in the years when big tobacco were spelled with CAPS and tobacco was a major advertiser you got all sorts of slanted "news" about how good smoking was for you. tobacco no longer "owns" the news, someone else in now in the drivers seat and has the checkbook, live with it.

Judged:

1

Been There wrote:

<quoted text>
Same here, only I wasn't so nice. I wanted to know if they just printed anything that was sent to them or if they had any investigative reporters left at ABC. I listed several questions that they should have asked. Like: does Stan Glantz have a degree in mechanical engineering or medicine? Do they have documentation to suppport their claim that non ban supporters are funded by "big tobacco"? If smoking is dropping at such a high rate, why is asthma sky rocketing? Is the ACS really sitting on a billion and half dollars while appealing to John Q Public for donations? Why do they feel it is their responsibility to force Americans to do as they think best? And the last, but not least, question for ABC- when a country develops a socialist mentality- who is the first group to be shut down or shut up? And if one is only presenting spoon fed propaganda- would it make any difference.

Judged:

1

just candid wrote:

Back in the years when big tobacco were spelled with CAPS and tobacco was a major advertiser you got all sorts of slanted "news" about how good smoking was for you. tobacco no longer "owns" the news, someone else in now in the drivers seat and has the checkbook, live with it.

Judged:

1

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>
the only one in the drivers seat should be the truth and facts, funny you think a person or org should 'own ' the news.Spoken like a anti with a sordid lying agenda to push on the public

Judged:

1

Been There wrote:

http://www.tvparty.com/vaultco mcig.html
The last cigarette TV commercial (for Virginia Slims) was broadcast on the Johnny Carson Tonight Show at 11:59pm on January 1, 1971.
It's been 37 years since cigarettes were advertised on TV. And you gotta love it when anti smokers do the same thing [that] they talk about the cigarette manufactures doing with such disdain and disgust. If you are going to complain about the actions of others; why you be just like them.

Judged:

1

Musician wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't see your post before I posted.
Sorry.
Didn't see the last ciggie commerical either. It was past my bedtime at the time.
That made it almost 1970 when the ads were yanked.
Wasn't that Banzhaf's first project into the world of ambulance chasing instead of legitimate law practice (if such a thing exists).

Musician wrote:

<quoted text>

News went out the door when Walter Cronkite retired.

the truth wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
"Walter Cronkite was featured in anti-smoking ads in the 1960s funded by the Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association. In one ad broadcast in April, 1969 he referred to smoking cigarettes "self-imposed torture.""