RESEARCH PAPER

Press coverage of public expenditure of Master Settlement Agreement funds: how are non-tobacco control related expenditures represented?

K M Clegg Smith¹, M A Wakefield² and M Nichter³

¹ University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
² Centre for Behavioral Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
³ Department of Anthropology, University of Arizone, Tucson, Arizone, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Katherine M Clegg Smith, 850 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60607, USA;
kmcsmith{at}uic.edu

Objective: To examine newspaper reports of Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) allocation decisions outside of tobacco control, focusing on the arguments being put forth in favour of competing claims on MSA funds. The major aims were to identify newsworthy non-tobacco control areas for which MSA funds have been applied and to examine how non-tobacco control spending has been presented through the US press.

Design: A qualitative textual analysis was performed on 94 articles taken from a sample of 322 newspapers over a 12 month period (October 2000 through September 2001) that related to the allocation of MSA funds to non-tobacco control causes. Articles were coded for general content areas of MSA allocation as well as for rhetorical and framing devices employed to explain and justify allocation decisions.

Main outcome measures: (1) Areas of non-tobacco control allocation; (2) rhetorical devices and framing techniques employed in the articles to discuss the allocation.

Results: The analysis identified a wide variety of issues for which MSA funds were being appropriated. Three main frames emerged in relation to justifying or appealing for particular spending decisions: (1) funds should be allocated to the needy and/or the deserving; (2) funds should be spent on state development; (3) funds should be put towards helping the state weather a crisis. Claims for each such issue were made using strategies such as presenting the MSA funds as a "windfall", focusing coverage on the merits of the cause rather than the issue of resource allocation, and stressing links between the particular claim and the stated objectives of the MSA.

Conclusions: Press coverage of MSA non-tobacco control spending suggests that the funds have been quickly formulated as fodder for state spending, rather than to support tobacco control efforts. Thus, caution is required in pursuing settlements with the industry where the objective is better funding for tobacco control efforts, particularly in light of the possibility that press coverage of MSA allocation may actually serve as positive publicity for the tobacco industry.

Keywords: Master Settlement Agreement; media; newspapers; textual analysis

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Smith, K C., Wakefield, M A, Terry-McElrath, Y, Chaloupka, F J, Flay, B, Johnston, L, Saba, A, Siebel, C (2008). Relation between newspaper coverage of tobacco issues and smoking attitudes and behaviour among American teens. Tobacco Control 17: 17-24 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Long, M., Slater, M. D, Lysengen, L. (2006). US news media coverage of tobacco control issues.. Tobacco Control 15: 367-372 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Frieden, T. R. (2005). FRIEDEN RESPONDS. Am. J. Public Health 95: 931-932 [Full Text]  
• Austin-Lane, J., Girasek, D. C., Barbour, G. L. (2004). A Qualitative Study of Post-Settlement Influences on State Tobacco Control Funding. Health Promot Pract 5: 46S-56S [Abstract]