AdAge.com is the latest publication to report that Michael Moore's pending documentary on the health care industry has industry execs rattled.

AdAge.com reports that drug company execs have told their employees not to talk with Moore. Quotes in the article:

"A review of America's health-care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched to pin down what works and what needs to be improved," said Ken Johnson, senior VP for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "You won't get that from Michael Moore."

Added a spokesman for one of the top 10 pharma companies: "We expect it will be one-sided and
biased, just like his other documentaries."

Hmmm: one-sided and biased. Kinda like direct-to-consumer drug ads, in other words?

Moore has written, "I don't think the country needs a movie that tells you that HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies suck. Everybody knows that. I'd like to show you some things you don't know. So stay tuned for where this movie has led me. I think you might enjoy it."

The movie may not be released until early 2007.

I watched the 6 o’clock TV news on the 3 leading Twin Cities TV stations last night and I give them all an F on covering the President’s visit to the area.

Were issues covered? No.

He met with a health care panel and signed an executive order to make more health care cost and quality information available to consumers.

But the TV newscasts had more silly discussion about traffic jams caused by the Presidential motorcade and Air Force One than there was attention to issues. One station even offered live cut-ins of the president waving as he got back on the plane and then again as Air Force One began to roll on the runway. Wow, that's good and important TV.

Come on! This is the 14th largest broadcast market in the country. And this is the best we can get on substance? On issues?

If this was just a political fundraising trip, why not call it that? If there was no substance to the alleged policy announcements, why not report that?

What value was there in the President’s ideas and in the executive order? Where was the reporting? Was the biggest issue the traffic jam caused by his visit?

I think not, not given rising health care costs, problems of the uninsured, calls for universal national health insurance, questions about integrity in science at the federal level, etc., etc. etc.

Shame on the local media.

(AP Photo)

"An apple (or two) a day may help keep Alzheimer's away -- and fight the effects of aging on the brain," according to a story posted on WebMD.

The story should have said clearly, boldly and early: "IF YOU ARE A MOUSE."

But the story, reporting on a study funded by the U.S. Apple Association and the Apple Products Research & Education Council, didn't mention mice until seven paragraphs deep in the story. No important caveats appeared in the story.

In fact one quote was the exact same quote in a U.S. Apple Association news release.

Here's a caveat for news and health care consumers: Yesterday CBS News announced it was partnering with WebMD in an effort to "expand its medical and health coverage." Let's hope the partnership doesn't result in more mouse breakthroughs on the network newscasts.

Monday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune had two stories that wore the pom-poms of cheerleading better than the ink-stained wretchedness of good journalism.

Back in February, the Star Tribune was among the local Minneapolis-Saint Paul media that hyped an announcement of the reversal of diabetes in a few monkeys over a short term by transplanting insulin-producing cells from pigs.

Monday’s story, “From pigs, a cure for diabetes?��? profiled “a Duluth businessman's vision: cells from pigs … will help U researchers.��? The story said that “In February, a scientist at the U announced that he and other researchers had cured diabetes in monkeys by injecting cells from pigs.��? I don’t recall the scientist ever using the word “cure,��? nor did the University news release.

Even if he did, what does that term mean to readers? If you asked 100 people about a cure for diabetes, what would they say that means? A short-term reversal in some (but not all) animals on which it was tried? I doubt that would be the accepted definition.

The paper also wrote: “The Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve clinical trials of the pig islets' use in humans, but clearance is expected.��? Better not bank on that one until it’s in hand. The trail of tears of expected FDA approvals that never happened is longer than you may think. But if you’re in cheerleading mode, you bet on the hometown team, right?

Then, in Monday’s business section, the Star Tribune had a story, Hypertension implant has promise,��? “reporting that “ a Maple Grove firm's device to lower stubbornly high blood pressure is attracting attention -- and deep-pocket investors, as well.��?

The story, also in cheerleading fashion, describes a photo taken during the first human implantation of the device, with a masked surgeon in an operating room holding up a piece of notebook paper on which he's scrawled, "It works."

Good science and good journalism demand more than a thumbs up after just one case.

Indeed, the story says the device “still is undergoing clinical trials and has a long way to go to win regulatory approval as being safe and effective.��?

The paper quotes a company exec who says it's too soon to say how much the system might cost, but it's likely to be between $6,000 - $35,000, with an initial U.S. market of up to 2 million patients.

Hey, how’s that for letting the manufacturer use your newspaper to create demand while setting a narrow price range – only a $29,000 swing in price possibilities!

Couldn’t this story have waited until some more data and evidence were in hand?

Or is this not journalism? Is it cheerleading? You can’t do both.