March 1, 2006
Ethical concerns about holes in the news/ad wall
The wall that once existed between news and advertising has many gaping holes in it.
The Bulldog Reporter’s Daily Dog website says that some readers of the Charlotte News & Observer were bothered by the paper’s handling of two pieces on the GlaxoSmithKline drug company this past Sunday.
The website says: “Big pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline got a lot of attention in last Sunday’s News & Observer in Charlotte. On the front page was a story headlined, “GSK scientist pursues Alzheimer’s treatment,” that featured the pharmaceutical company’s efforts to produce a breakthrough drug to treat or prevent the disease, reports Ted Vaden, a staff writer for the daily.
On the front of the Classified section was another story titled, “It takes a vast team to introduce a new drug.” The story focused on the GSK drug Valtrex, used to treat genital herpes and other afflictions.
Even though one GSK story was in the news section and the other in advertising, their conjunction caught the attention of some readers.
“I was just blown away, as a consumer advocate, by the GlaxoSmithKline one-two punch,” said Adam Searing, a healthcare advocate with the N.C. Justice Center. “The first was the real puff piece about an Alzheimer’s treatment that’s two or three years away. Then I opened the Sunday Classified and it seems like Glaxo has bought half the classified section, and it’s not even identified as advertising. I don’t think it serves your high standards to allow someone like Glaxo to have such an influence on the newspaper.”
The paper says the Classified story was not an ad. It just looked that way to some. They say it was actually a story written by a freelancer hired by the advertising department. (Doesn’t that make it an ad?)
A North Carolina ethics prof said, “I don’t think the line between advertising and editorial is as clear in your readers’ minds as it is in your offices.”
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.
Our Comments Policy
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:
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.
You might also like