Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of tobcontTobacco ControlVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Tob Control. 2001 June; 10(2): 154–160.
PMCID: PMC1747550

Print media coverage of California's smokefree bar law


OBJECTIVE—To assess the print media coverage of California's smokefree bar law in the state of California.
DESIGN—Content analysis of newspaper, trade journal, and magazine items.
SUBJECTS—Items regarding the smokefree bar law published seven months before and one year following the implementation of the smokefree bar law (June 1997 to December 1998). Items consisted of news articles (n = 446), opinion editorials (n = 31), editorials (n = 104), letters to the editor (n = 240), and cartoons (n = 10).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Number and timing of publication of items, presence of tobacco industry arguments or public health arguments regarding law, positive, negative, and neutral views of opinion items published.
RESULTS—53% of items published concerning the smokefree bar law were news articles, 47% were opinion items. 45% of items regarding the smokefree bar law were published during the first month of implementation. The tobacco industry dominated coverage in most categories (economics, choice, enforcement, ventilation, legislation, individual quotes), except for categories public health used the most frequently (government role, tactics, organisational quotes). Anti-law editorials and letters to the editor were published more than pro-law editorials and letters. Region of the state, paper size, presence of local clean indoor air legislation, and voting on tobacco related ballot initiatives did not have an impact on the presence of opinion items.
CONCLUSIONS—The tobacco industry succeeded in obtaining more coverage of the smokefree bar law, both in news items and opinion items. The tobacco industry used historical arguments of restricting freedom of choice and economic ramifications in fighting the smokefree bar law, while public health groups focused on the worker protection issue, and exposed tobacco industry tactics. Despite the skewed coverage, public health groups obtained adequate attention to their arguments to keep the law in effect.

Keywords: content analysis; politics; passive smoking; smokefree bar law; California

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (133K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Macdonald HR, Glantz SA. Political realities of statewide smoking legislation: the passage of California's Assembly Bill 13. Tob Control. 1997 Spring;6(1):41–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Macdonald H, Aguinaga S, Glantz SA. The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'. Am J Public Health. 1997 Dec;87(12):1989–1996. [PubMed]
  • Lima JC, Siegel M. The tobacco settlement: an analysis of newspaper coverage of a national policy debate, 1997-98. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):247–253. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Menashe CL, Siegel M. The power of a frame: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues--United States, 1985-1996. J Health Commun. 1998 Oct-Dec;3(4):307–325. [PubMed]
  • Cardador MT, Hazan AR, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry smokers' rights publications: a content analysis. Am J Public Health. 1995 Sep;85(9):1212–1217. [PubMed]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group