The People vs. Big Tobacco: How the States Took On the Cigarette Giant
By Carrick Mollencamp, Adam Levy, Joseph Menn and Jeffrey Rothfelder
Reviewed by Ina R. Bort
From the New York Law Journal
April 3, 1998
Ask 20 people for their opinion on the current White House scandals and you can expect to get as many answers. Ask them their opinion on media coverage of the unfolding drama, however, and you'll likely find consensus.
From the day the Lewinsky story broke, the press has been the target of more criticism than Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr combined. Americans across the political spectrum can be heard decrying the "tabloidization" of even the most reputable periodicals and chiding journalists for their failure to "stick to the facts." The People vs. Big Tobacco is an example of what happens when reporters do indeed just stick to the facts.
This account of the tobacco settlement would seem to have all the necessary ingredients: a timely topic of great import, a colorful cast of characters, and, for its authors, a team of Bloomberg News reporters with access to a treasure trove of information. What, then, makes the book so difficult to read? A possible answer is the authors' rigid adherence, throughout the book's 200-plus pages, to utterly responsible reporting.
To their credit, the authors could not possibly have been more thorough. Their preparation entailed interviews with more than 100 people, including "negotiators in the settlement talks, state attorneys general, tobacco company executives and attorneys, senior officials in the White House and federal agencies, congressmen, public health advocates, whistle-blowers, private trial lawyers, and lobbyists." Additionally, the authors "combed through thousands of documents, including Securities and Exchange Commission and court filings, books and articles on tobacco, and internal memos from the tobacco industry and state attorneys."
Such exhaustive research ensures that The People vs. Big Tobacco will rank among the most accurate narratives of the settlement negotiations. The irony is that in spite of the extensive information contained in these pages, a reader with the stamina to complete the book is likely to feel no more knowledgeable than he or she did at the outset. This suggests that our current tendency to equate capable reporting with conscientious attention to accuracy misses the mark. The People vs. Big Tobacco demonstrates that effective journalism, particularly legal journalism, far exceeds this narrow definition.
It is difficult to imagine a topic more daunting in scope and complexity — and more challenging to a reporter — than this one. Myriad interests and legal issues are implicated in what, if ratified by Congress, is the most sweeping legislation of our time. As currently drafted, the proposed legislation would, as it states in its preamble, "mandate a total reformation and restructuring of how tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and distributed in this country."
Specifically, it provides for the tobacco industry's payment, over 25 years, of $ 368.5 billion to 40 states. The money will reimburse tobacco-related Medicaid costs and subsidize certain smoking prevention programs. The legislation also imposes strict limitations on advertising, and authorizes a certain amount of FDA regulation. In exchange for these concessions, the tobacco industry is to receive, to a degree still undetermined, immunity from future litigation.
These and other terms of the settlement, as well as the arduous process by which they were hammered out, are dutifully recorded in The People vs. Big Tobacco. What the book lacks, however, is the analysis and context required to vest these facts with meaning.
Consider, for example, that it was only four years ago when tobacco company executives testified before Congress and stated, in a widely televised broadcast, that they believed nicotine to be non-addictive. Today, tobacco executives are "pleading with Congress to approve the settlement," and conceding that "tobacco is a health hazard and, to one degree or another, addictive." (New York Times, Feb. 25, 1998 at A16). When juxtaposed, as in the Times article, these facts highlight the dramatic turnaround the tobacco industry has experienced in a short period of time. This effect is diluted, however, when they are buried within the detailed chronology of The People vs. Big Tobacco.
Also lacking is the legal analysis warranted by a settlement of this magnitude. The proposed legislation effects dramatic changes to existing tort law and administrative law, some of which are alluded to but not explored. And the authors entirely ignore the First Amendment implications of the legislation's strict limitations on cigarette advertising and marketing. This despite the fact that the authors had access to, and allegedly "in-depth" interviews with, attorneys from both sides of the negotiating table.
While the authors' attention to detail is undeniably tireless, many of the minutiae are of dubious relevance. Why must we know, for instance, the name of each hotel used by the attorneys and executives? Or be told, on at least three occasions, that one tobacco attorney is an Orthodox Jew? While the authors no doubt hope that this information will somehow make the settlement negotiations "real" to us, it only muddles the story and obscures the larger issues.
It is unfortunate that the authors did not better employ their familiarity with the tobacco settlement story. After all, these reporters were the very first to bring the closed-door negotiations to the public's attention. If anything is to be learned from this book, it is that accuracy is but one element of good reporting. Rumor and speculation cannot be relied upon to enhance the truth. But facts alone are not always sufficient to convey the significance of the most newsworthy events.
