This article concerns the proposed smoking-bans in London’s public places after its introduction in New York and San Francisco and its active encouragement in California. The headline is surprisingly understated and appears almost conversational as if an invitation to debate as opposed to a strict call to support or opposition. The article promotes a survey, “the biggest ever about the contentious issue” and provides information about how to access the survey on the internet, in itself an indication of the audience (i.e. that they have access to the internet through work or home which suggests a middle class market). The piece quotes research gathered by the anti-smoking pressure group, Smoke-Free London but provides no research from any pro-smoking groups. This research showed that a significant majority of people supported their cause (between 70-75%) which is of no surprise as they would not have published results that did not support their claims. The results from the survey the article is promoting will be passed to London Mayor, Ken Livingstone in January. We are subsequently told that the Mayor does not have the authority to introduce a smoking ban but is “committed to working with partners to cut smoking in public places”.
Upon close analysis of the article the implication is that the proposed smoking ban will most likely not be exclusive but each sector, such as club industry, pub industry, shopping centres, will be informed of the results and asked to make a decision based upon the findings of their market. The likelihood of an all-out ban seems low but there may be “levels of restriction” imposed. The chairman of the London Health Commission, Len Duvall is also consulted who we must assume would also be in favour of the ban although his comments seem quite objective;
“Smoking is something that affects all Londoners whether they smoke or not. We want to give them the chance to have their say on whether smoking should or should not be allowed in a range of public settings.”
It is interesting that the article refers to the introduction of smoking bans in California and New York but makes no further reference to this. The writer neglects to comment on the implications that it has had on businesses there. Upon my own private research, I found that a number of businesses have lost significant trade and some have ceased trading altogether due to the new law. No doubt, the statistics do not enforce the beliefs of the writer and are thus omitted. There are no ‘expert’ consultations regarding a stance against the ban and the article descends into the style of a pub debate as “arguments are already raging in London’s bars”. We are presented with the opinion of two customers at Clapham Common’s SW4 bar which has already introduced segregated smoking areas. Both customers appear to be middle class (a nursery nurse and a property developer from Borough and Kensington, respectively) and thus have more meaningful opinions within media ideology although the property developer, a smoker and against the ban, appears much more articulate than his ‘opponent’;
“To say that a person cannot smoke in a public place is, in my opinion, an infringement of that individual’s civil liberties.”
The positioning of his quotation is significant as it appears at the very end of the article to conclude it. It is the only opinion featured that actively opposes the ban and to leave it to the end could suggest a certain ‘dead donkey’ attitude from the journalist towards it but personally I find that it emphasises his position and slightly trivialises the content of the article previous. The reader leaves the article with this impression and opinion engrained upon them.
Bibliography
Anderson, A (1997), Media, Culture and the Environment. UCL Press.
Eldridge, J & Williams, K (1997)The Mass Media and Power in Britain. Oxford UP
