The right to honest news and sound research is fundamental, but it is growing ever more elusive.
By now, the benefit of using safer alternatives to combustible tobacco as smoking cessation tools has been well documented. Yet, media coverage—from tabloids to mainstream outlets, which tragically often based on biased research—often skews the story, exaggerating risks associated with novel nicotine products and misrepresenting scientific findings. The result? Smokers misled, harm-reduction undermined, and a public health opportunity lost.
Take a recent Guardian headline suggesting a third of UK teens who vape will eventually smoke. The report cited a modeling study based on survey data from 1974, 1986, and 2018. Although youth smoking dropped from 33% in 1974 to 12% in 2018, researchers projected a 33% probability that current vapers in 2018 might later smoke—versus just 1% for non-vapers.
Critics argue this leap is speculative. The study didn’t track real individuals over time—it relied on regression models. Behavioral scientist Arielle Selya points out the likely culprit isn’t vaping causing smoking, but rather the “common liability” theory—where underlying risk factors (such as alcohol use or family smoking) incline youth both to vape and smoke. In other words, correlation, not causation.
Similarly, a Daily Mail article warned of a “devastating health impact” from youth vaping, based on an umbrella review compiling 56 studies on harms, including respiratory effects and mental health issues. But this review excluded evidence of potential benefits—such as smoking cessation—skewing the narrative. Most included studies were low-quality and cross-sectional, therefore incapable of proving causality. In fact, youth smoking has actually fallen sharply as vaping rose, suggesting displacement rather than a gateway.
Cutting through the noise
Alarmist headlines like these have consequences. A recent JAMA Network Open study found that only 27% of UK smokers now believe vaping is healthier than smoking—down from 44% a decade earlier. Alarmingly, over half mistakenly view vaping as equally or more harmful than smoking. When fatalism replaces facts, smokers may be discouraged from switching to far less harmful alternatives.
The distortion continues with media framing. In analyses from US and British platforms, news outlets emphasize risks, while social media more often discusses vaping’s role in smoking cessation—a nuance many public readers miss. It’s not just about incomplete stories—it’s about losing sight of a powerful intervention.
So where does the fault lie? Of course one of the main issues is the current click bait culture, whereby online content—whether a headline, image, or subject line—relies on fear inducing sensationalism, exaggeration, or misleading claims, to grab attention and drive clicks, with the chief aim of boosting web traffic and page views. But it does not end here.
A system that breeds bias in science
Arielle Selya recently wrote about a major problem in academia’s incentive structure. Researchers are rewarded for grant success and high-impact publications, not balanced, neutral inquiry. With career pressures and institutional dependence on grant overheads, scientists often tailor their work to align with funding priorities, reinforcing anti-vaping narratives over exploring harm-reduction potential. This dynamic encourages sensationalism, splitting publications, and discouraging replication or publication of null findings.
Media distortion coupled with academic incentives creates a feedback loop that undermines public understanding. But the data tell a different story: vaping and other alternatives are substantially safer than smoking, and driving smoking cessation. Medical bodies like Public Health England estimate vaping is around 95% less harmful than cigarettes—an estimate criticized but echoed by multiple public health organizations. Clearly communicating these distinctions matters.
Naturally, there is a growing number of people who are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that they generally cannot trust what they read. This is leading to widespread scepticism and a general sense of distrust, leaving many not knowing which are the right sources of information to turn to when in need. I mean, if one cannot trust the findings of peer reviewed studies published by reputable scientific journals, what can they trust?
To shift the narrative and strengthen public health, several changes are needed urgently. Media outlets would need to commit to doing what they are meant to do – share true facts rather than just being aimless money making machines. That would look like interpreting research responsibly, acknowledging methodological limits, resisting sensationalism, and making clear distinctions between associations and causations.
Reclaiming the truth
Communications should highlight the well-established fact that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking, particularly for adults trying to quit. At the same time, academic culture needs reform: incentives should reward balanced, reproducible, and policy-relevant work and researchers should be acclaimed for publishing sound and significant research – quality over quantity. Finally, policymakers and health authorities must play an active role in correcting public misperceptions by delivering clear, evidence-based messages that differentiate risks by product and user group.
We are at a crossroads: flawed narratives risk reversing gains in smoking declines. But if we restore nuance, clarity, and context into media, academia, and public messaging, we can empower smokers to make informed choices—choices that could save millions of lives.