December 1, 2005

Gannett TV stations push profits and ethical limits

Posted By

Tags

That troublesomely fuzzy TV ethics line just keeps getting fuzzier.

The Star Tribune reports on Minneapolis station KARE joining a list of other Gannett-owned stations around the country that charge advertisers to talk about their products on a talk show. Advertisers will pay KARE $2,000 to $2,5000 for 5-minute segments on the show. Station news veterans will host the paid-for appearances. My University of Minnesota colleague Jane Kirtley calls this a “logical extension of the whole pernicious practice of infomercials.”

The Washington Times reports on that same Gannett trend and on an even more troublesome practice. The Times reports that WUSA in Washington charged the D.C. government as much as $100,000 a year to promote breast cancer awareness during the station’s newscasts. So here’s a station wrapping itself in the pink ribbon of breast cancer awareness while demanding a premium fee to do so.

Let me remind you: the Radio-Television News Directors Association code of ethics has clauses that dictate that professional electronic journalists should: “Not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage; Determine news content solely through editorial judgment and not as the result of outside influence; Recognize that sponsorship of the news will not be used in any way to determine, restrict, or manipulate content; Refuse to allow the interests of ownership or management to influence news judgment and content inappropriately.”

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.