When asked why the tobacco agreement failed, Goldstone replied, "My answer is one word money. Three hundred sixty-eight billion dollars that was in the June 20th agreement is apparently not enough to satisfy all the wishes of the federal government."

    In response to these accusations, Senator McCain said, "there are a large number of possibilities that Congress would have to act in the interest of trying to stop kids from smoking."

    The whole time this issue has been in the news, the President and Congress have stated that, "we only acted in what we thought would be the most effective way to stop kids from smoking."

    Now it definitely seems that these men are speaking about the same subject, but they are coming from very different angles. This is where the concept of framing becomes relevant. Framing an argument or a mode of communication is significant in how it offers a perspective that manages the receiver's alignment, manipulates salience in how it directs attention so that one sees certain things and ignores others, and it influences the information that is going to follow. Throughout our class discussion it became obvious that these two men were trying to frame this tobacco issue in two different ways. Mr. Goldstone's argument was concerned with framing this conflict as a money issue and the majority of his speech reflected this. Senator McCain went to great pains to repeatedly emphasize that this conflict was all about stopping children from smoking.

    How one frames an argument becomes significant once a communication has been framed along a particular viewpoint, all the information that follows may be perfectly valid. That is why both these arguments may seem perfectly reasonable. They may be reasonable, but only within their appropriate frames. Senator McCain certainly wants to focus the public's attention to this issue as strictly a public health aspect. Consequently, which framed argument one accepts will obviously influence how one thinks about this issue. Both these arguments are offering a particular perspective that is telling the listener to focus on certain issues and dismisses others while hoping to influence the listener's judgement.

    Our discussion also contained some recommendations for preparing and defending yourself against a framed argument. First, you should always ask yourself what is the agenda of the person presenting the information. This will often help you identify if you are being led to pay attention to certain things and ignore others. Second, try to remember what information is most important to you so that you will not be led away from it. Lastly, if a decision seems like a simple open and shut case, ask yourself if it is really that simple, or is it the frame making it so.

    Counterfactual thinking was also a topic the class discussed. Much of counterfactual thinking, in regards to the tobacco situation, is the question of the possibilities if certain things were to happen. Each side uses counterfactual thinking in order to lure people into their perspective on the issue. A lot of blame is placed on the tobacco industry for much of the public's health problems. This is used by the President and Congress to cause intergroup bias. Also, counterfactual-thinking causes both sides of the issue to question what could have happened if certain outcomes had occurred in the past. If Camel cigarettes used their original logo of the old man and his cigarettes instead of the colorful cartoon Camel, then the company would most likely not be selling as many cigarettes, especially to minors. Many products create an image in order to sell their product. The Marlboro Man portrays a rough and rugged individual smoking the Marlboro product. The implication in this is that you will be rough and tough too if you use their product. By getting the public to think about good, healthy, or interesting things like this, many companies sell their attitude rather than their products.

    Another factor that we looked at was the idea of authority in this issue. President Clinton, Congress, Senator McCain, and Steven Goldstone all play the role of authority figures. Authority easily influences many people. However, in this issue, the public and the tobacco industry are very reluctant to listen directly to the authority. This is a very colorful issue and it is not easy to come up with a quick and easy decision.

    Clinton used his position in the presidency to influence the public by speaking to high school students in Kentucky about the dangers of smoking. We can all imagine that Clinton was not trying to actually make these particular people stop smoking, but instead he was trying to alert the media and show the American people that he is working on this issue. Senator McCain and Congress are stretching their legs by declaring that they will pass a bill with or without the tobacco industry's help in order to curb kids' smoking.

    Steven Goldstone, the CEO for RJR Nabisco, is the authority for numerous groups, including his company, the tobacco industry in general, the tobacco farmers, and adult smokers. Due to his position in Nabisco, he has become the authority figure for people to look to. Not only do these authority figures act on their own behalf, but they also create viewpoints for those who look to them as authority. People base their arguments on what their preferred authority figure states is the stance they are taking.

    One topic that the class brought up was the fact that Clinton and McCain are on the same side. Clinton is a democrat and McCain is leading the campaign for the republican nomination. This is enough to make people question the authority in this issue or maybe you could use this as a reason to question politicians. Another interesting topic was the fact that McCain says that he is fighting for the "American Way". This is great except that a recent study revealed that 10% of a major tobacco company's revenue came from the Army. The Army has always been viewed as the representation of the American people and their values. This is therefore an extremely contradictory statement by McCain.

    Congress has indicated that it would want 506 billion dollars from the tobacco industry and a price increase of $1.10 has been proposed for each pack of cigarettes if a deal is to made. These are hefty charges for the industry to take care of. One thing that the class discussed was the question of where all of this money is going. This is a tough question to deal with. It tears you one way by making you wonder if you should even question it because it is viewed as a generally good thing for the public's health. The other side says that the public needs to see a receipt that tells exactly where the money is going. Some of the money is going to anti-smoking campaigns but the rest of it just disappears in the government's pockets.

    The main issue of the tobacco debate has been the increase of adolescent smoking, and it seems to be the advertising done by the tobacco companies is to be blamed. Commercials like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man are said to influence children in ways that make them want to smoke. But are these ads really what make children smoke, or are there other reasons as to why? There are several social impact theories that can be used to demonstrate why kids decide to smoke. Legitimately constituted authorities are extremely influential, especially to children (Blass, 1991). A prominent authority figure in a child's life is their parents. In a case where a child's parents smoke, the child is likely to smoke as well. Another concept to look at is modeling. Children will imitate what other people do, especially when the person is an authority figure or someone the child looks up to. Many movies and television shows that are popular for kids show people smoking. Athletes smoke, musicians smoke, my aunt smokes, so why can't I smoke? This is a common mindframe that many children have. Also, children are very susceptible to peer pressure. If their friends smoke, they will smoke solely for the purpose of "fitting in" and looking cool. During our class discussion, this seemed to be the most commonly mentioned reason why kids smoke. We came to a consensus that peer pressure had the biggest influence on children smoking.

    The last concept we discussed was that of the "illusion of invulnerability" which some call the "it will never happen to me" syndrome. At that young of an age, children are not concerned with their health, especially when the results of smoking (lung cancer, emphysema) are far off in the future. Kids do not think these things will happen to them so smoking becomes a non-dangerous act. Another idea brought up in class was the idea of rebellion. Kids rebel against parents and authority figures all the time. Smoking for kids is an illegal act, so they feel as if they are "beating the system". It also makes them feel more mature, and children are always looking to grow up faster than they should. These examples are not, by any means, the only reasons as to why kids smoke. These are merely suggestions as to why. We will never know for sure what causes adolescents to smoke because in a situation like this, there are many unseen factors that cause an outcome.

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding Behavior in the Milgram Obedience Experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.