"Pro-smoking letters not a priority" – The Guardian
Friday, March 8, 2013 at 14:37 On Tuesday the Guardian reported that the Government is to legislate for plain cigarette packaging.
The UK, readers were told, is to follow the example of Australia, 'where cigarettes must be sold in drab packets with graphic health warnings'. Legislation will be announced in the Queen's speech in May.
Confusingly, on the same day a written answer from health minister Anna Soubry to Alex Cunningham MP repeated the mantra that the Government has an "open mind" on the subject.
Meanwhile David Cameron's official spokesman denied a decision had been made.
Despite this the Guardian went on to publish a letter by two Labour MEPs welcoming "the news that the government has decided to support [standardised packaging for cigarettes]".
There have been no letters opposing plain packaging and the paper has declined to publish a letter from Forest that attempted to put the record straight or at least offer a different perspective on the paper's report.
This morning therefore I made a second call to the letters editor who fobbed me off with the rather dismissive comment, "Pro-smoking letters are not a priority".
I have now sent another letter that takes into account Cameron's comments yesterday. The letters editor has rather grudgingly agreed to consider it.
Don't hold your breath.
Reader Comments (4)
I'm not sure why you bothered unless it was an exercise in validating what you already knew what would happen. It's the Guardian ... they've been actively and unashamedly supporting the tobacco control industry for at least 10 years. ASH, Labour, and all other anti-smoker interests do not even need to bribe them; the Guardian does it willingly, often pro-actively, aided and abetted by its anti-smoker journalists like Denis Campbell and Patrick Wintour. Those guys are tobacco control's puppets -- we all know it is true. We also know the Guardian despises smokers (and Forest particularly) and that there's little point in dealing with them. Or the BBC. Or most of the media, with very few exceptions.
This Guardian article, whether true or false, has unfortunately put you on the back foot, and the effort your spending trying to repair the damage caused would be better served doing something else to cause damage to tobacco control. This is not the time to be defensive. It is time to attack -- so focus your energy where it will have an impact using those who will listen to you. And that's not the media.
This is a war of propaganda and deception for the tobacco control industry -- facts, evidence, truth ... these don't matter. You cannot win by playing this war game by the rules that they created. The question is, if you truly want to win this war, how far are you willing to go? What are you prepared to do? You know who the real targets are, and you know exactly what they are up to right now.
The truth not a priority for the Guardian.
Press Complaints Commission?
I have thought of that, Pat, although I'm not a huge fan of the PCC. As a former editor myself I never liked being put under pressure to publish something against my will, but I do think that in this case the paper has a duty to its readers to publish the PM's comment.
To be fair to the Guardian, George, and the political editor in particular, I don't doubt that a "senior Whitehall source" did tell him that plain packaging legislation will be in the Queen's Speech in May. What we'd like to know is, on whose authority was that person speaking or was the "source" acting on his own initiative, which seems unlikely. The issue we have with the Guardian is that the PM has subsequently denied that a decision has been made and they have declined to inform their readers. Personally I think they're missing a trick because if it turns out that that a decision has been made then David Cameron - unwittingly perhaps - has not been telling the truth.
Jay, I disagree that we shouldn't try to engage with the Guardian or the BBC. Yes, it's a thankless task at times but there are some good, principled journalists working for both organisations. To dismiss or ignore the BBC in particular would be self-defeating because its various services reach millions of people worldwide. Frankly, we would not be doing our job if we turned our back on them so we do our best to engage, both proactively and reactively.
One other point: what you read here is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Forest does as a whole. I write about things that I think readers will be interested in but it's not the whole story. It's a personal blog designed to give readers a flavour of what I do but I don't write about a lot of things that take place behind the scenes - private letters and meetings, for example, confidential phone calls (and information), research that has yet to see the light of day etc etc. Nor do I write about every interview or journalistic enquiry we receive. Far from it. Only rarely do I mention the many requests we receive from students for information or interviews, or pleas for help from the general public. In that context my phone calls and emails to the BBC and Guardian this week represent a very small part of our work and in the overall scheme of things I consider them time well spent, whatever the outcome.