Reframing social media discourse following the FDA's menthol ban announcement as industry agenda setting rather than public sentiment.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Nathan A Silver, Elexis C Kierstead, Sherry L Emery, Steven Binns, Mignonne C Guy, Barbara Schillo
{"title":"Reframing social media discourse following the FDA's menthol ban announcement as industry agenda setting rather than public sentiment.","authors":"Nathan A Silver, Elexis C Kierstead, Sherry L Emery, Steven Binns, Mignonne C Guy, Barbara Schillo","doi":"10.1136/tc-2024-058719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The tobacco industry has spent millions of dollars promoting racialised narratives against the US Food and Drug Administration's recently announced ban on menthol as a characterising cigarette flavour. This research investigates racialised narratives in online discourse following the ban's announcement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tweets and users responding to the April 2022 menthol ban announcement were content analysed to examine the influence of tobacco industry affiliates and potentially organic African-American/Black (AA/B) users. Next we investigated the extent to which the menthol ban was discussed on AA/B subreddits and used Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling to provide an overview of the menthol ban discussion on Reddit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 28 (13.9%) tweets by 22 users claimed that the menthol ban would lead to police violence and/or racial discrimination. Of users who tweeted about over-policing, eight (36.4%) had financial connections to the tobacco industry. There were only three tweets receiving a combined seven retweets from potentially organic AA/B users. On Reddit, only two posts with one comment discussed the menthol ban on subreddits dedicated to AA/B issues and culture. Topic modelling showed that the most common topic related to the menthol ban involved the social and political implications of the ban followed by illicit markets and protecting youth.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tweets claiming a menthol ban will lead to police violence are indicative of industry agenda-setting. The menthol ban was not a prominent topic of discussion in AA/B subreddits although users discussing news and politics expressed concern for how AA/B people would respond to a ban politically.</p>","PeriodicalId":23145,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Control","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058719","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The tobacco industry has spent millions of dollars promoting racialised narratives against the US Food and Drug Administration's recently announced ban on menthol as a characterising cigarette flavour. This research investigates racialised narratives in online discourse following the ban's announcement.

Methods: Tweets and users responding to the April 2022 menthol ban announcement were content analysed to examine the influence of tobacco industry affiliates and potentially organic African-American/Black (AA/B) users. Next we investigated the extent to which the menthol ban was discussed on AA/B subreddits and used Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling to provide an overview of the menthol ban discussion on Reddit.

Results: Only 28 (13.9%) tweets by 22 users claimed that the menthol ban would lead to police violence and/or racial discrimination. Of users who tweeted about over-policing, eight (36.4%) had financial connections to the tobacco industry. There were only three tweets receiving a combined seven retweets from potentially organic AA/B users. On Reddit, only two posts with one comment discussed the menthol ban on subreddits dedicated to AA/B issues and culture. Topic modelling showed that the most common topic related to the menthol ban involved the social and political implications of the ban followed by illicit markets and protecting youth.

Conclusion: Tweets claiming a menthol ban will lead to police violence are indicative of industry agenda-setting. The menthol ban was not a prominent topic of discussion in AA/B subreddits although users discussing news and politics expressed concern for how AA/B people would respond to a ban politically.

将 FDA 宣布薄荷醇禁令后的社交媒体讨论重构为行业议程设置而非公众情绪。
背景:美国食品和药物管理局最近宣布禁止将薄荷脑作为香烟的特征性味道,烟草行业为此花费了数百万美元宣传种族化叙事。本研究调查了禁令宣布后网络言论中的种族化叙事:对回应 2022 年 4 月薄荷醇禁令公告的推文和用户进行了内容分析,以研究烟草行业附属机构和潜在有机非裔美国人/黑人(AA/B)用户的影响。接下来,我们调查了AA/B子论坛对薄荷醇禁令的讨论程度,并使用Latent Dirichlet Allocation主题建模提供了Reddit上薄荷醇禁令讨论的概况:只有 22 位用户的 28 条(13.9%)推文声称薄荷醇禁令会导致警察暴力和/或种族歧视。在关于过度警务的推文中,有 8 位用户(36.4%)与烟草行业有经济联系。只有三条推文得到了可能是AA/B用户的七次转发。在 Reddit 上,只有两个帖子和一条评论在专门讨论 AA/B 问题和文化的子论坛上讨论了薄荷醇禁令。话题建模显示,与薄荷醇禁令相关的最常见话题涉及禁令的社会和政治影响,其次是非法市场和保护青少年:声称薄荷醇禁令将导致警察暴力的推文表明了行业议程设置。虽然讨论新闻和政治的用户对 AA/B 族人在政治上如何应对禁令表示担忧,但薄荷醇禁令在 AA/B 族人的子论坛中并不是一个突出的讨论话题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tobacco Control
Tobacco Control 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
26.90%
发文量
223
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Tobacco Control is an international peer-reviewed journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco''s effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population-level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信