It is no big surprise that celebrities smoke and most magazines portray this accurately. Now that they can no longer light up at their lunch meetings, or at their favorite bar because of NY smoking laws, celebrities are forced to take their smoking breaks outside, where they are prime targets for photographers, always willing to catch a Kate Hudson or a Lindsey Lohan with that butt hanging out of their pouty little mouths. As Mireya Navarro reveals in the New York Times article,Where There’s Smoke, There’s a Star (which appeared in the Sunday, September 18 edition in the Fashion section),many are worried that with teenagers ogling over these choice photos, they too will turn to smoking because their favorite celeb is always doing so. Some celebrities try to convince photographers not to use the photos, claiming that they have a teenage fan base, and don’t want to hurt their image, or lead their teenager followers down the road to lung cancer. The director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education believes that celebrities as well as editors have a role in protecting the innocence of our children as he claims, “There’s also an editorial decision made to show the picture of people smoking. They are all playing a roleâ€.
While most magazines will print what they wish, as they are only portraying the celebrities as they really are, some magazines have grown a conscience. Editors from People magazine and Us Weekly try to avoid publishing photos of celebrity smoking at all costs. As one editor remarked, “We’re sensitive to the notion that it might encourage some people to do it.â€
Is it really the media’s responsibility to protect our children from the evils of smoking? If a magazine chooses not to run cigarette ads in their publication, that is justifiable. Printing these ads would propose the magazines acceptance of smoking and its advertising to the readers of its magazines, which can often include teenagers. But when did photographs become advertisements? If a celebrity wishes to smoke that is their choice. If they don’t want to ruin their image or protect their fan club members from lung cancer, why don’t they put on a Nicorette patch and do themselves some good. Magazines should not be presenting false images of these celebrities. While magazines such as People and Us lean more towards the tabloid variety than hard news and truth is often lost in between the pages, it is still less than comforting to know that they are trying to protect these ashtrays. I don’t think it would change my view of a celebrity if I suddenly knew that they smoked, but it does change my view of a magazine and its editorial board when I learn of their editorial process in terms of choosing their photography. If a celebrity wants to smoke that is there business. Let them be their own conscience and leave the magazines out of it.
Ryan McConnell @ September 19, 2005 - 10:08pm
I read that story over the weekend, too, but was more troubled by the '"studies" used to bolster the writer's argument. Both seemed, at best, to be dubious. One was a Dartmouth study positing that those teens that picked up smoking in their teenage years watched over two and a half times more movies that featured smoking in it than those who did not smoke. The author of the study concluded that this meant that the movies had a 'direct correlation' with teenagers picking up smoking, which seems like a stretch. First off, the first rule of such studies is that "correlation does not equal causation," which the author does not seem to recognize by using the word "direct." But, more importantly, isn't it possible that those people who choose to pick up smoking are going to be attacted to movies that feature smoking (and not, as the study suggests, the movies "made" the students smoke)? I forget the other one and am currently too lazy to look it up, but it was equally questionable. Anyway....I liked the story, just thought the writer was a little careless in her use of supporting evidence.
(Also, FYI -- the Times smoking article doesn't work for whatever reason...)
»