The Irony of Pete Brown's "Neo-Prohibitionist" Series

(This is part of a series of short analytic blogs from students in Sociology of Drink. I credit the authors by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

By Scott Nelson

In Pete Brown’s blog series, “Answering the Neo-Prohibitionists,” there are elements which can be very useful in helping media consumers cut through the anti-drink rhetoric and recognize the true motive behind the content.  However, Brown himself is guilty of doing the same thing which he criticizes his opposition of doing.  The term “neo-prohibitionist” is the greatest example of this.  This is a loaded term, designed to entice his readership into a combative mentality which villainizes his opposition.  Ironically, his methods do little more to support his cause than those of the contrary.

Pete Brown seems particularly concerned with The Daily Mail, and Alcohol Concern.  These are examples of the so-called “neo-prohibitionists.” The following lays out the ten proposed policies of 

The Alcohol Concern organization in the UK (from alcoholconcern.org.uk):

• A minimum price of at least 50p per unit of alcohol 
• A phased ban on alcohol sponsorship of sports, music and cultural events
• Alcohol advertising content should be restricted to promoting just factual information
• Public health should be introduced as a statutory licensing objective
• The sale of alcohol in shops should be restricted 
• At least one-third of every alcohol product label should be given over to an evidence-based health warning specified by an independent regulatory body.
• The tax on every alcohol product should be proportionate 
• The legal limit for blood alcohol concentration for drivers should be reduced
• All health and social care professionals should be trained to routinely provide early identification and brief alcohol advice to their clients.
• Access levels to specialist alcohol treatment should be increased from 6% to 15%

One might consider these policies unreasonable, but the fact of the matter is nowhere is the organization asking for legal prohibition.  For Brown to use this term is to invoke the radicalism of the United States Prohibition movement of the early twentieth century.  This is a misrepresentation for the sake of inciting a certain kind of reaction.  Namely, a combative reaction.  Fair enough, except Brown is criticizing these organizations and publications for doing exactly the same thing: misrepresenting statistics and using scare-tactics.  This, then, is a contradiction which does not serve his argument well.

In his 2/20/2014 blog, “6 ways to spot if anti-drink stories are trying to mislead you,” Brown does a good job breaking down the components of a scare-piece, pointing out ways in which statistics can be skewed or outright lie by omission, and the way in which language can frame the message in a misleading manner.  "Use of language is an immediate giveaway as to whether the piece is impartial or not,” he writes.  Agreed.  But he will then turn around and use language in a way which has the same effect (even if he is doing it a little differently).  In his 11/20/13 blog on Sir Ian Gilmore and Alcohol Concern, he uses language tactics from the very start to frame his message, calling the Daily Mail “hateful, and fear-mongering.”  This are strong, divisive words.  He does the same thing, less eloquently, in his 4/20/2011 piece, “Britain still refusing to drink itself to death – despite media insisting it.”  The opening line is “A few weeks ago various shitty newspapers picked up on the shocking rise in binge drinking among women.”  To call his opposition “shitty” immediately discredits him, even if he’s right.  It makes him sound juvenile and emotional, which means anything following that statement is suspect to partisanship, something of which he himself is very suspect.  Again, he is doing himself a disservice. 

But perhaps it is not his fault, entirely.  In this day in age we expect news coverage and opinion pieces to be exciting and entertaining.  Take American politics and the news media for example.  We see increasingly more partisan bickering and extremism because this is what news consumers want.  A thoughtful conversation between two moderates on either side of the isle lacks action.  We’d rather see seven idiots screaming at each other.  That’s fun.  So maybe Brown is just trying to give his audience what they want.  The problem is he seems to be interested in an honest discourse.  In his 3/22/2012 piece he asks, “So what is it that makes poor drinkers in the north more likely to drink themselves to death than affluent drinkers in the south, who on average drink more?  Oh, that's too hard.  That might involve addressing the societal, cultural and economic problems that are the REAL reasons some people drink harmfully” (From If you really care about the rise in liver disease, read this).  His sarcasm points to his true desire; that being an honest look at alcohol’s role in society. 

The term “neo-prohibitionist” is not only exaggerated and combative, but entirely antithetical to Brown’s point.  If he seeks honesty, and thoughtful discourse, he is going about in the wrong way.  This term and some of the other language he uses makes it seem as though he is more interested in a spitting contest.  To his chagrin, putting this type of material into the world will likely only result in more of the same from his opposition. 

Questions:

• Am I wrong?  Are Brown’s argumentative tactics inherently different from those of the anti-drink organizations and publications?  If so, how?
• Is Brown right to use such combative tactics? Is it too idealistic to imagine an honest discourse, free of exaggeratory rhetoric, which is aimed to flesh out the truth of the role of alcohol in society?
• If “neo-prohibitionist” is indeed an exaggerated term, what would be a more fitting term to characterize the anti-drink groups and why?