Suppr超能文献

抢占策略以阻止对含糖饮料征税:支持华盛顿州 1634 号倡议的 Facebook 广告的框架分析。

Pre-emption strategies to block taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: A framing analysis of Facebook advertising in support of Washington state initiative-1634.

机构信息

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA.

出版信息

Glob Public Health. 2022 Aug-Sep;17(9):1854-1867. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1977971. Epub 2021 Sep 19.

Abstract

In 2018, the sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) industry introduced a ballot measure (I-1634) in Washington State of the United States to prevent further local taxes on groceries. The measure, which passed, is emblematic of new pre-emptive legislative strategies by the SSB industry to block soda taxes and conceal those strategies under the guise of preventing burdensome 'grocery taxes'. This paper uses qualitative framing analysis to examine a public archive of 1218 Facebook advertisements to understand how I-1634 proponents shaped public discourse and engaged in misinformation efforts online during the lead up to the passage of I-1634. Coding strategies identified 7 compelling and inter-related framing strategies used by the campaign. These included strategies that misinformed the public about the threat of grocery taxation and the economic impacts it would have on the region. Strategies to conceal the true intent of the ballot measure and the sponsors of the campaign were aided by Facebook's advertising platform, which does not moderate misinformation in advertising and allows advertisers to conceal their sponsors. We urge public health researchers and advocates to pay more attention to how Facebook and other social media platforms can be used by industries to target voters, misinform publics, and misconstrue industry support.

摘要

2018 年,含糖饮料(SSB)行业在美国华盛顿州推出了一项投票措施(I-1634),以防止对杂货进一步征收地方税。该措施获得通过,这是 SSB 行业采取新的先发制人立法策略来阻止苏打税并以防止“杂货税”的负担为名掩盖这些策略的象征。本文使用定性框架分析来审查 Facebook 广告的 1218 个公共档案,以了解 I-1634 的支持者如何在 I-1634 通过之前的在线塑造公众话语并进行错误信息宣传。编码策略确定了该运动使用的 7 种引人注目的、相互关联的框架策略。这些策略包括向公众错误传达对杂货征税的威胁以及对该地区经济的影响。为了隐瞒投票措施的真正意图和运动的赞助商,Facebook 的广告平台提供了帮助,该平台不会对广告中的错误信息进行审查,并允许广告商隐藏其赞助商。我们敦促公共卫生研究人员和倡导者更加关注 Facebook 和其他社交媒体平台如何被行业用来针对选民、误导公众和误解行业支持。

相似文献

2
The Politics of Taxes for Health: An Analysis of the Passage of the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Mexico.
Health Syst Reform. 2020;6(1):e1669122. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2019.1669122.
3
Impact of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax two-year post-tax implementation in Seattle, Washington, United States.
J Public Health Policy. 2021 Dec;42(4):574-588. doi: 10.1057/s41271-021-00308-8. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
4
State Preemption: An Emerging Threat to Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation.
Am J Public Health. 2021 Apr;111(4):677-686. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.306062. Epub 2021 Feb 18.
5
An exploration of the portrayal of the UK soft drinks industry levy in UK national newspapers.
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Dec;23(17):3241-3249. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020000208. Epub 2020 Jun 5.
8
Evaluation of Changes in Grams of Sugar Sold After the Implementation of the Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax.
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2132271. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.32271.
9
The political economy of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: an analysis from seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Glob Health Action. 2021 Jan 1;14(1):1909267. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.1909267.
10
Media Coverage and Framing of Oakland's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
Am J Health Promot. 2021 Jun;35(5):698-702. doi: 10.1177/0890117120986104. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Generating opposition to universal health care policies in the United States: An analysis of private health industry advertising on Meta platforms.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025 Jul 16;5(7):e0003244. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003244. eCollection 2025.
2
Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society.
PLoS One. 2024 May 31;19(5):e0303183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303183. eCollection 2024.
3
Is Reformulation Still a Suitable Goal for Sugary Beverage Taxes? A Response to Recent Commentaries.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:8366. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8366. Epub 2023 Dec 13.
4
Framing health taxes: a scoping review.
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Oct;8(Suppl 8). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012055.
6
Evaluation of Seattle's sweetened beverage tax on tax support and perceived economic and health impacts.
Prev Med Rep. 2022 Apr 30;27:101809. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101809. eCollection 2022 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
State Preemption: An Emerging Threat to Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxation.
Am J Public Health. 2021 Apr;111(4):677-686. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.306062. Epub 2021 Feb 18.
2
Media Coverage and Framing of Oakland's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax, 2016-2019.
Am J Health Promot. 2021 Jun;35(5):698-702. doi: 10.1177/0890117120986104. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
3
How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland.
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Nov;264:113215. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113215. Epub 2020 Aug 15.
5
Preemption in Tobacco Control: A Framework for Other Areas of Public Health.
Am J Public Health. 2020 Mar;110(3):345-350. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305473. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
6
Towards an equitable digital public health era: promoting equity through a health literacy perspective.
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Oct 1;29(Supplement_3):13-17. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz166.
8
Impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on purchases and dietary intake: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Obes Rev. 2019 Sep;20(9):1187-1204. doi: 10.1111/obr.12868. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
10
Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults.
Circulation. 2019 Apr 30;139(18):2113-2125. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037401.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验