The first article that I am analyzing is "Tobacco attack smokescreen for vested interests", first published in The Times of London, but reprinted in The Australian on the eighth of March this year. This article is both anti-smoking and anti-drinking, and it uses the smoking debate to make a lengthy introduction to the second contention.

The article begins by talking about the sponsorship of Formula One racing by tobacco companies. At the start of the article, the author Simon Barnes is discussing the launch of a new tobacco sponsored motoring team, British American Tobacco. He describes the debate with the members "coughing and spluttering on their own self-righteousness", a parody on the common view of smokers as sick and choking individuals. This sheds a light of comedy on the issue, and allows people from both sides to relax into the

In conclusion, banning public smoking is not only practical, but beneficial to the health of our community. The selfish murderers who are blustering "I am my own master, I smoke where I want, when I want," should realize that while they do indeed have the right to smoke, the public right to good health is the most important. Many people have been campaigning for years to stop public smoking, but only now in this enlightened day are we finally beginning to achieve that goal.

In the sixth paragraph the author changes his tone. By asking the question "Why is tobacco sponsorship immoral?" and answering with the main arguments against smoking, using words such as dangerous, drug and addicted. These are power words, designed to shock us into a fear of the product.

In the seventh paragraph, the proprietor of a smoke cafe Lee Ringelheim says "I wanted to create a decadent haven for the discerning smoker." This creates an image of many people sitting around having a good time, relaxing and enjoying their lives, and the smokers as being distinguished and intelligent people. Further down he comments, "I always thought of...New York as the most free city in the world." This sentence demonstrates the feelings which the smokers have about the laws of New York, still following the first sentence. Again it creates the impression that smokers are being downtrodden.

The overall feel of this article is that the author is knowledgeable and well-researched into his area of writing, and that we are hearing this information from a friend: he maintains an easy and relaxed atmosphere throughout the entire piece.

The third article, "MCG smoking ban sets a fine example" is most obviously anti-smoking. The first paragraph, "...to ban smoking at the MCG is welcome news for a number of reasons," shows us immediately the editors viewpoint. This statement is very strong, and has the firm conviction you would expect from the editor.

Some common words found in the essay are:
AMA Victoria, American Tobacco, Lee Ringelheim, Daily Telegraph, Words Smoking, Times London, , Pig-headed Smokers, public smoking, Simon Barnes, tobacco companies, smoke public, passive smoke, health risks, stop smoking altogether, article author, women perform, smoking banned, smoking altogether, tobacco sponsorship, main arguments smoking, public smoking banned,
Approximate Word count = 1617
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)