|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
The Problem·
The most important evidence has been provided by a Dartmouth
(For the pdf text of this study, click here) ·
A second study, released in July in the journal Pediatrics,
found that 14% of the teens free to watch tobacco-intensive R-rated
movies took up smoking, compared to 3% of teens whose parents barred
them from viewing R-rated fare. (For the abstract of this study, click here. The full text can be obtained for a fee) ·
A third study done by the (For the full version of this study, click here) · A fourth recent study released in July by the Harvard School of Public Health reports a decade of “ratings creep,” finding that content once concentrated in R-rated films, including smoking, is increasingly found in films rated PG and PG-13. (For the full version of this study, click here. The article requires free registration) The SolutionWe are not calling for any censorship of movie content. We are proposing four actions to help to resolve this problem: · Rate any movie with smoking “R.” · Run anti-smoking ads before screening movies with smoking in theaters. · Certify in movie credits that no one in the production received payments or anything of value from tobaccos companies or their agents. · Stop identifying specific brands on screen. Rate any movie
with smoking “R.” Our main recommendation is for movie studios to utilize the current ratings system implemented by The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to provide parents the opportunity to exercise control over what their children view. In short, we are asking studios to change the rating, not the content. Major health
organizations, including the The tobacco industry tells us smoking should be an adult choice. This option allows parents to decide how much to expose children to on-screen smoking until they reach 17 years of age. Run anti-smoking
ads before screening movies with smoking in theaters Screening anti-smoking trailers before films depicting smoking has shown to have a demonstrated deterrent effect. These should be spots developed by anti-smoking groups or states, not tobacco companies. Certify in movie credits that no one in the production received payoffs For many years paid tobacco placement in films were routine. The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between tobacco companies and the government bars tobacco firms from paid brand product placement. But unbranded smoking (the bulk of smoking on screen) is a gray area and offshore and in-kind arrangements are as hard to prove as to disprove. It is unclear that any government agency is taking steps to clearly enforce this ban. Going on record in a movie’s credits would make movie producers accountable for any continuing collusion within their production companies. Stop identifying specific brands on screen Tobacco brands on
screen convey nothing except a star endorsement. Signage and other brand
collateral were significant parts of explicit brand placement in the
1970s and 1980s. At the urging of state attorneys general, some tobacco
firms have publicly stated that they do not condone use of their
trademarks in movies. But they have also signaled studios that they will
take no legal action. From magazine ads to transit posters to stockcars,
all
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||