Does movie affect teen smoking? essay

The media has power over all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

Today’s media is highly sophisticated and relies on modern digital technology. Their influence extends to the far corners of the world and permeates to the very nature of our society and being. In 2005, Sargent shows concern about the impact of motion pictures as old as movies themselves. He recalled that the first motion picture camera was invented in 1895. Surprisingly, 11 years since its invention, the New York City passed a censorship law, and by 1921, the governor of State of New signed a sweeping state censorship law as ‘‘ the only way to remedy what everyone concedes has grown to be a very great evil. ’’ 1934, he added the possibility of federal censorship prompted movie distributors to adopt and enforce the Hays Production Code, voluntary movie production guidelines that restricted how sex and violence could be portrayed.

It was in 1968, when the said code was abolished and was replaced with a modern rating system, which continues to rate movies on sex, language, and violence. The studies of Bushman (2001) and Heath (1989) in Sargent (2005) states despite widespread concern, there was little evidence to support a direct effect of movies on the behaviors for which movies were rated. Much of the evidence that links seeing media violence to aggression focuses on television and video game violence. The same can be said about the few published studies on the relation between media exposure and human sexual behavior—the focus mainly has been on television (Collin, 2004 & Brown, 1991).

In 2004, Biglan conducted a nationwide The National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) it showed tracks of tobacco use among nationally representative cross-sectional samples of U. S. adolescents. In 2002, the NYTS was administered to 26, 149 students in 246 schools across the United States. Data shows the prevalence of ever smoking, current (past 30 days), and daily smoking among U.

S. middle school and high school students. The prevalence of smoking depends on how the question is asked, and in what context the data are acquired.

Smoking rates for ever tried smoking do not vary much by race and gender, but prevalence for more advanced stages of smoking is substantially lower for African American adolescents (Sargent, 2005). Sunday’s (2004) clinical study showed that on an average, adolescents view 3 hours of television per day, in addition to watching movies and videos, and reading magazines and newspapers. She found out that despite the complete absence of tobacco advertisements on television for a number of years, adolescents were exposed routinely to images of smokers in magazine advertisements and in movies. Additionally, in recent years teenagers have been exposed to antismoking print and television advertisements. In 1998, McIntosh report that the television advertising on smoking have an effect on both smoking susceptibility and the maintenance of smoking. A number of researchers have examined the portrayal of smokers in popular movies.

His group conducted a content analysis of 20 of the 100 top-grossing movies from 1940 to 1989. Although they found no difference in attractiveness, aggression, and other attributes between smokers and nonsmokers, they did find that smokers were depicted as more romantically and sexually active than nonsmokers and as slightly more intelligent. An examination of the 10 top-grossing films per year from 1985 to 1995 revealed that almost all films (98%) promoted tobacco use, whereas only slightly more than one third discouraged tobacco use (Everett, 1998).

According to Goldstein (1999) in Sunday (2004) what was most disturbing, although the ‘‘ protobacco’’ messages were most apparent in R-rated movies (40%) and quite uncommon in G-rated movies (8%), were these positive messages appeared in 30% of PG and 28% of PG13 movies, the movies most likely to be viewed by those most susceptible to smoking, those in late childhood and early adolescence. Goldstein (1999) study of G- rated animated films from 1937 to 1997, revealed that most of the films depicted tobacco usage at least once, including all of the most recent movies. Further, the characters that used tobacco were as likely to be good as bad characters. The movie industry continues to reinforce the belief that smoking is very prevalent (clearly more prevalent than it actually is) and acceptable and rarely associated with negative outcomes.

The cross-sectional Sargent’s (2001) study and Dalton’s (2003) longitudinal study both in Sargent (2005) have shown that the adolescents who had seen more movies that depicted smoking were more likely to have initiated smoking. Further, favorite movie stars of adolescents who had ever smoked were more likely to smoke both on-screen and in their personal lives than the favorites of nonsmoking adolescents (Distefan, 1999). The tobacco industries’ advertising campaign creates an image of a smoker as young, active, adventurous, extremely attractive, and healthy.

These companies even sponsored sporting events. The images showed by the tobacco companies contradict the established data that smoking is unhealthy and leads to an increased risk of mortality and these extremely positive images; thus, encouraging adolescents to smoke. In 1995, Unger reported that students who were susceptible to smoking rated tobacco advertisements as positively as did smokers; students who were not susceptible to smoking did not like cigarette advertising and rated it negatively. Similarly, in a study of Pierce (1998) in a longitudinal study of nonsmoking adolescents to explore whether responsiveness to tobacco advertising predicted future tobacco usage revealed that teenagers who were more responsive to tobacco advertising at baseline were almost three times more likely to initiate smoking. Agreement with antitobacco advertising was a strong negative predictor of intent to smoke, whereas the willingness to use or wear tobacco promotional products and recognition of tobacco brands and having favorite advertisements were positive predictors of intent to smoke (Sunday, 2004). Effects of Smoking In 1996, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, USA, published a Tobacco Information and Prevention Source (TIPS) on “ Health Effect of Smoking Among Young People.

The 1994 CDC’s report revealed that that among young people, the short-term health consequences of smoking include respiratory and nonrespiratory effects, addiction to nicotine, and the associated risk of other drug use. Long-term health consequences of youth smoking were reinforced by the fact that most young people who smoke regularly continue to smoke throughout adulthood. Cigarette smokers have a lower level of lung function than those persons who have never smoked.

Smoking reduces the rate of lung growth. In adults, cigarette smoking causes heart disease and stroke. Studies have shown that early signs of these diseases can be found in adolescents who smoke. Smoking hurts young people’s physical fitness in terms of both performance and endurance—even among young people trained in competitive running. The resting heart rates of young adult smokers are two to three beats per minute faster than nonsmokers. Smoking at an early age increases the risk of lung cancer.

For most smoking-related cancers, the risk rises as the individual continues to smoke. Teens who smoke are three times more likely than nonsmokers to use alcohol, eight times more likely to use marijuana, and 22 times more likely to use cocaine. Smoking is associated with a host of other risky behaviors, such as fighting and engaging in unprotected sex. It was also reported by the agency per Lew’s (1987) study that on a average, someone who smokes a pack or more of cigarettes each day lives 7 years less than someone who never smoked. Ardy’s study (1989) in CDC’ s (1994) report showed that teenage smokers suffer from shortness of breath almost three times as often as teens who don’t smoke, and produce phlegm more than twice as often as teens who don’t smoke.

Also, teenage smokers are more likely to have seen a doctor or other health professionals for an emotional or psychological complaint. Conclusion Media’s presence in our society is unprecedented. It is a moving force for reforms in government in all levels; it impels changes in society and culture; and it educates every strata of our humane being. In the light of its strong influence on youth in regard to smoking, media should re-examine its role as a model to generation x. Its influence or role in teenage smoking is neither a myth nor a dream. It is a fact backed with scientific studies by the different scientific and academic institutions spanning several decades. Media as an organization, being a potent force of change, should self regulate and start change within its ranks. Otherwise, it is not only the public that will be victims but its children as well.

Now is the time.