Bad Science: Anti-Smoking Lobby Should Know Better

On a page where Johnny Depp is tipped to play Freddie Mercury, it seems unlikely that anything even more ridiculous could be reported. But this is exactly what happens on page 44 of today's Herald Sun. In an article titled "Where there's smoke there's ire", research is cited to demonstrate that Hollywood is behind a massive conspiracy to promote smoking. If it is true that the movie industry is doing such a thing, then it is truly and significant and newsworthy story. However, it is neither significant nor newsworthy because the research behind it is, and I choose my words carefully here, complete and utter bullshit.

For some time, I have been concerned at the misuse of so-called research to promote political, commercial or other agenda, and the media's tendency to run with it. It often works like this: a company that sells fish fingers pays a market researcher to survey 1,000 adults on, say, family dining behaviour. This leads to media releases blaring "40% of Australian families eat dinner on laps", and it thereby finds its way into newspapers and talkback radio, perhaps stimulating debate about whether or not we should, in fact, eat dinner in front of the telly. The agenda here is for the company to position itself as a "market leader" and to develop its brand recognition and reputation, blah blah.

The Hollywood smoking story comes from research commissioned by the clearly impartial "Breathe California" anti-smoking group. Its agenda, as is patently obvious, is to oppose smoking and its promotion. The promotion of smoking via popular culture is undoubtedly a bugbear; this is as it should be. But spare us the bogus science.

The "research" in question demonstrates that 60 percent of Hollywood movies feature smoking, whereas only 25 percent of people smoke.

Outraged yet?

The Herald Sun swallows this hook, line and stinker:

"If less than 25 percent of the population smokes, why do 60 percent of US films depict smoking?" it asks in the opening paragraph.

Let me try to answer that question.

A movie is not a person. In fact, movies typically feature a lot of people. For argument's sake, let's say that a given feature length film has 20 characters - a modest number. If this is representative of the human race, then we could expect that five of the characters would smoke. If it were an intimate romantic comedy featuring only four characters, then - if we are to adhere to the statistical principles espoused by Breathe California - there would be one smoker.

Pursue this logic just a little bit further and something becomes glaringly obvious:

Smoking is significantly under-represented in Hollywood films.

But even if you don't support my alternative thesis - that this research actually demonstrates that there isn't enough smoking in films - consider this: there is, as one example, a massive over-representation of criminals in films, and criminals are far more likely than average to smoke. Or let me cite some research based on interviewing myself (which is about as rigorous as Breathe California's methodology): criminals are about one thousand times more likely to occur on screen than in real life; criminals are 200 percent more likely than non-criminals to smoke; ergo, smoking is logically more prevalent in movies than elsewhere. So, if only 60 percent of motion pictures feature smoking we can only conclude:

Smoking is massively under-represented in Hollywood films.

But all this is predicated on the unquestioned assumption - an assumption adopted by Breathe California and embraced by the Herald Sun - that Hollywood films should somehow portray life in a statistically valid and plausible fashion. This, of course, is arrant nonsense. For one thing, if movies were to do this, there would be a lot more sleeping and going-to-the-toilet, a lot less sex and far fewer car chases.

Much irks me about this kind of nonsense, not least of which this: the anti-smoking lobby has the easiest gig around - you are against something everyone hates anyway, real science - as opposed to this claptrap - supports you by the bucketload, and governments can't wait to discover new ways to skewer your shared enemy. Why, oh why, did you hire someone to sit through 160 movies in the name of research to come up with this garbage?

It is one thing to employ these tactics when your cause is dubious or morally ambiguous; it is quite another to do so when you actually have real evidence, scientific consensus and prime position atop the moral high ground.