How it was with tobacco

I was looking through old issues of Fact for a book review by Gershon Legman, and came across this, from the March-April 1964 issue:

Writing about lung cancer in Cosmopolitan a few years ago, Gordon and Kenneth Boggs reported:  “Now that the furor has died down and experts have had time to examine the supposedly damning statistics, the cigarette seems to be all but exonerated.”  Besides, “filters have removed much of the sting from the general condemnation.”

What do Gordon and Kenneth Boggs say today?  Not a word.  They can’t.

The article was originally submitted to Cosmopolitan by two writers who said nothing whatsoever about cigarettes being “all but exonerated” and about any protection afforded by filters.  The editors asked the writers to insert a few sentences to that effect; they refused.  The editors themselves added the sentences.  Onto the article they put the by-line “By Gordon and Kenneth Boggs,” who do not exist.

Is this actually the way things used to work?

Tagged , , ,

One thought on “How it was with tobacco

  1. Frank says:

    Not your question, perhaps, but I can’t help but think of the global warming “debate”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: