Posted by Gary Schwitzer in Business of health, Health care journalism, health care marketing, News releases
I’ve been too nice the past two years, calling my year-enders “PR puffery” or “PR stuff.” The stuff I’m writing about here is pure crap. So we’re calling it that.
This annual series is about the bombardment of news releases sent to journalists who are trying to decide what is vital information for readers, viewers and listeners. If journalists were to write about every news release they receive about institutions’ new multi-disciplinary specialty centers, or about every “first”, or about every “only one-of-its-kind” announcement, there would be no time for enterprise journalism. While the tone of this post may be light-hearted in places, we end with a very serious note about why this matters to the public.
So now, just some of the collection of PR crap that one little blogger received in 2012:
“Beautiful Legs features a blend of trans-Resveratrol and grapeseed extract plus Diosmin to promote circulation and oxygenation. Derived from citrus, clinically proven Diosmin helps maintain vein structure and smooth skin tone. Beautiful Legs combats swelling and water retention for legs that look defined and shapely, not heavy.” (That’s the look I’m going for in 2013!)
CORRECTED INFO: Interview Opp: 1 in 10 Has a Memory Problem (Someone apparently forgot something. Is it now up to 2 in 10?)
I’ll end this piece the way I ended my 2010 and 2011 PR year-ender pieces (see both below):
This is not all fun and games. In my 2009 report on “The State of Health Journalism in the US,” I wrote:
“The challenging nature of the news environment today threatens to make it more difficult for health journalists to maintain the wall that once existed betwee
n the editorial and advertising sides of the business, and perhaps less able to see through or deflect the influence of public relations professionals. For journalism, and for the audience it serves, this may be the most troubling trend today. … The danger is that with the increasing constraints in many newsrooms, the PR folks may be winning more often — getting their messages through to news audiences in a less filtered or unfiltered way. They’re helping to provide content to fill the shrinking news hole — content that the shrinking news staff can’t provide. In an interview for this report, one East Coast newspaper reporter said that “My big fight was with the way PR people were basically able to steer news …The health team was relying more and more on public relations to provide the story, and sources for the story, and they had too much control over the story. When you let someone else who has an agenda — to make a hospital look as good as it can — [control the story], it gets in the way of finding that truth.”
And it’s not fun and games when we’ve found more than 120 stories in the past 6.5 years that have relied solely or largely on news releases in “reporting” on health care news.
2010: Year-end review of health care PR puffery sent to journalists
2011: My 2nd annual year-ender: Health care PR stuff one blogger sees in a year
——————————-
Follow us on Facebook,
and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Thanks for this Gary. With your permission, I’ll be using that quote from the 2009 report for my funders and in grants to potential funders. It’s amazing to me how hard it’s been to get folks to hear how what’s happening in the health reporting world is harmful – at the most basic level – to their health.
Re cocoa research, I have gotten several variations of a press release that keeps claiming that this research has reached “a tipping point” and at one point, was sent a book on this topic by a publicist. When I looked up a study cited on the first page of the book, in which cocoa was dubbed a superfood that was superior in its purported “antioxidant benefits” to blueberries, acai, cranberries and other superfruits, I discovered that the research was funded and conducted by people who work for the Hershey Center for Health & Nutrition.
This obvious source of bias was NOT even mentioned in the book, but instead the study was discussed in a manner that put it on par with Harvard-led research, which I found scientifically dishonest. The book also promoted a specific cocoa supplement, making me feel that the book was probably also company-funded. I asked to be removed from this publicist’s list.
Joshua Schneck posted on December 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm
As a PR professional working in healthcare, I can only say, drink a large glass of that anti-aging, anti-inflammatory trans-Reseveratrol isomer and hold on tight. 2013 will probably be worse. Thanks for the great job you do advocating for responsible healthcare journalism!