“Celebrity sickness” campaigns will always be less than truthful if they fail to disclose who’s paying the bills for the campaign. When journalists join in by giving free advertisiing – disguised as news – to drug-company sponsored celebrity campaigns without disclosing the drug company funding, it is a travesty. I have written about how CNN failed to disclose former NFL-er Joe Theismann’s drug company support on a tour promoting prostate health.
The latest example I’ve seen was in The Oregonian last week. The paper ran a story that proclaimed that “Actress Sally Field joins the women who are fighting osteoporosis with medicine, supplements and exercise.” Not surprisingly, there was an overt plug for a drug: “Field chose to take Boniva, a once-a-month medication from Roche Therapeutics.” And the paper let her get away with this: “I feel it’s kind of a miracle.”
Nowhere did the paper mention that Roche pays for the former Flying Nun to sprout her wings for its drug Boniva, something that is easily found on the Web.
Readers of The Oregonian deserve better. The “Nun”, proclaiming miracles, is just an actress being paid in a new role, following a script.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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