Women's Magazines' Coverage of Smoking Related Health Hazards

Abstract

Six major women's magazines have virtually no coverage of smoking and cancer. Lung cancer became number one cancer killer of women in 1985, surpassing breast cancer and accounting for almost 20% of all female cancer deaths.1 In one generation, lung cancer rates had increased four-fold among American women, paralleling, some 30 years later, enormous increase in female cigarette smoking during and immediately after World War II.2 While cure rates for many other cancers improved through 1980s, lung cancer remained most deadly, with 90% of those diagnosed dead within five years. In 1987, disease killed 44,000 American women.1 Ironically, most difficult cancer to cure continued to be easiest to prevent: Nearly 85% of all lung cancers have been directly linked to prolonged use.4 Throughout 1980s, scientists established other links between women's health and smoking. Studies found that women who smoked doubled their risk of contracting invasive cervical cancer,5 and those who also took birth control pills increased by tenfold their risk of heart attack.6 Other studies implicated smoking in both fertility7 and pregnancy problems.8 Early onset of menopause,9 and an increased incidence of osteoporosis,10 emphysema, bronchitis, chronic sinusitis and peptic ulcers were all linked to cigarette smoking during 1980s. From 1983-1987, more than 1,300 studies, articles and reviews on health hazards for women who smoke appeared in medical literature.12 Also during 1980s, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop made smoking a top national health concern, annually issuing strongly worded reports and pushing for more explicit warning labels on cigarettes and cigarette advertising that began to appear in 1985. As most widely advertised consumer product in America, cigarettes brought $1.5 billion into media's coffers in 1983. In 1970, year before cigarette advertising was banned on television, companies spent a mere $50 million advertising their products in magazines. Four years later, figure was $115 million.14 By mid-1980s, companies were spending in neighborhood of $400 million a year on magazine advertising.15 Some say these enormous expenditures have influenced way media cover health hazards of smoking. For years up to present, medical evidence on and disease has been treated differently from any other information on carriers of disease that do not advertise, writes press critic Ben Bagdikian.16 Indeed, examples of self-censorship of stories are plentiful. In one instance, executive director of American Council on Science and Health was asked to write an article about cancer for Harper's Bazaar. The manuscript, as submitted, led off with smoking. When Are You a High Risk? was finally published, discussion of smoking had been moved to last page of article, after two jumps. According to magazine's health editor, managing editor directed her to bury references to smoking so [they] wouldn't jump in face of every cigarette advertiser.17 In another instance involving Harper's Bazaar, a science writer submitted an article entitled Protect Your Man From Cancer that was never published because, according to editor, it focused too much on tobacco and the magazine is running three full-page, color ads [for cigarettes] this month.18 At Savvy, a freelancer's name was removed from masthead after she reviewed The Ladykillers, a book about women and smoking. Editor Wendy Crisp said she was afraid competitors would show review to cigarette advertisers as a way of stealing business from Savvv. It took one guy a whole year to get [R.J.] Reynolds account, she told a Wall Street Journal reporter. We're a very young magazine, and I don't want to get hurt by one lousy review.19 Other examples of self-censorship have been noted at Time, Newsweek, Psychology Today, Cosmopolitan and New Republic. …