The Media Plays Dumb on FDA Smoking Regulation
By TED RALL
Bill Clinton stunned the nation two weeks ago by announcing his decision to accept the Food and Drug Administration's recommendation that tobacco be regulated as a drug. Of course, what he really has in mind is simply reducing the influence of tobacco advertising on teenagers -- including banning tobacco-product billboards near schools and playgrounds and prohibiting giveaway promotions such as baseball caps and T-shirts. Good ideas, but using the FDA to do it constitutes a misuse of the agency's powers.
The agency's mandate is to evaluate substances under its jurisdiction, and issue one of three edicts: safe, unsafe, or safe under controlled conditions. Marijuana, for instance, is a controlled substance -- it can be prescribed to alleviate the pain of certain cancer patients. Heroin, a drug recently compared to tobacco by the Clinton Administration in terms of its ability to addict users, was found unsafe and banned entirely. Under normal FDA procedure, tobacco would probably be found unsafe (or at least controlled), and therefore made illegal for over-the-counter distribution. Instead, Clinton has turned over tobacco to the FDA for partial regulation to his exact specifications -- unsafe for those under 18 -- thus manipulating a respected government agency charged with a mandate to protect the public health.
In the finest tradition of journalism by press release, the most striking aspect of the media coverage of Clinton's election-year gambit was what was missing -- in this case, a simple leap of basic logic. Cigarettes are a toxin, completely devoid of any medicinal application, the use of which kills at least 400,000 Americans a year. The FDA has now received presidential authorization to regulate tobacco. The agency's director, David Kessler, is well known for his opposition to smoking. It would follow that, given the purpose of the FDA, that the agency would be required, sooner or later, to deem the drug wholly unsafe.
But few media outlets were asking the obvious questions: Does the FDA plan to end smoking as we know it? How can tobacco be considered a meritless drug and still be permitted for legal, over-the-counter distribution? And doesn't the agency's collusion with Clinton's political move constitute a breach of what should be their independent and nonpartisan mission?
Howard Fineman's incisive coverage in the July 15th issue of Newsweek anticipated the FDA move over a month ago: "Is Joe Camel the Willie Horton of 1996? We're about to find out...The idea is to drive a 'wedge' between Republicans on the take from tobacco companies and suburban swing voters -- many of whom are parents." But such tactical analysis was rare when the butts hit the fan.
Alison Mitchell's front-page story in the New York Times opened with an admiring overview: "The new regulations would give the Food and Drug Administration significant new powers to regulate tobacco and would pose the biggest government challenge to cigarette manufacturers since the 1964 Surgeon General's report that linked smoking to lung cancer."
She clearly understood Clinton's motivations: "Moves against smoking by young people have been a centerpiece of Mr. Clinton's effort to carve out his own 'family values' agenda to match the Republicans on social issues." However, Mitchell managed to ramble on through 28 column-inches of the Paper of Record without touching the FDA question -- this was almost identical to coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and other big-city dailies, many of which accept advertising from tobacco companies.
The New York Daily News hinted at the obvious in Timothy Clifford's front-page lead: "The current FDA proposal -- one of the toughest crackdowns ever on the $50 billion-a-year industry -- does not target adult smokers, but raises the possibility of future regulations against tobacco use."
Still, few got it more wrong than Corky Siemaszko's August 22nd accompanying analysis piece in the News. He cited John Banzhaf of the anti-smoking lobbying group Action on Smoking and Health: "We're absolutely delighted. For the first time cigarettes are going to be regulated like any other product, or any other drug." Not really. Every other drug is deemed safe or unsafe, period. Under the new regulations, nicotine would be unique -- the FDA would discourage access by 17-year-old Americans, but do nothing about 18-year-old smokers, implying that perhaps human lungs become immune to cancer after one attains voting age.
Network television news coverage on ABC, CBS and PBS's "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" parroted the administration's emphasis on teen smoking. None asked how the FDA could regulate tobacco without submitting Jesse Helms' favorite weed to its usual safety testing.
It is a testament to Clinton's current media mastery that he can so easily dictate the parameters of debate on the issues he chooses to address, and it is in part why he holds a commanding lead over Bob Dole in the polls. But the media must do more. They would be well advised to quit sniffing after bimbo eruptions in the Clinton camp, and take a whiff of what stinks right under their noses.
Ted Rall is a syndicated editorial cartoonist and opinion columnist living in New York City. His new book is "The Worst Thing I've Ever Done!" (NBM Publishing).