I always talk a great deal with my students about the blurred line between news and advertising in many settings these days. Now some of my past students are seeing it for themselves.
For whatever reason, a disproportionate share of one year’s graduating class is working in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where today the Argus Leader newspaper reports:
“A local television affiliate is ramping up its health care coverage, thanks to a partnership with Avera Health.
KSFY-TV this month began a partnership with the Sioux Falls-based health care system, broadcasting live and taped segments with doctors and other Avera professionals and patients.
“We’re telling patient stories and conveying the good work that our physicians are doing,” said Kenyon Gleason, spokesman for Avera McKennan, the health system’s flagship hospital in Sioux Falls.
KELO-TV and Sanford Health – Avera’s cross-town rival – have had a similar relationship for several years.”
I was interviewed for the story about the propriety of such arrangements, which give the appearance of independent news decision-making even though it’s a stacked deck – delivering only the news of the sponsoring health care institution. The new Sioux Falls sponsored segment will be called the “Avera Medical Minute.” Guess how many Avera competitors will show up in those segments?
Meantime, another past student of mine, hearing about the Sioux Falls stink, wrote from a a different Midwest TV market:
“We have health segments. They’re strictly advertisements, aired during the breaks in our newscasts with our logo on them. However, they’re created to look like news stories, with a “reporter” asking doctors questions. We get calls all the time, asking about this story we aired… and we have to say, sorry that’s a commercial… don’t know anything about it…”
It’s easy to understand viewers’ confusion. But it’s sad to see my former students’ early disillusionment with an industry that is starting to tear down the walls between the news side and the advertising side.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Major revisions + reversals of reporting about the efficacy of remdesivir and HCQ have compromised the public's trust in scientists and physicians. Complexity and caution are key to public #COVID19 communications @garyschwitzer https://ja.ma/3fzUW0M
SPH adjunct associate professor @garyschwitzer presented to @Georgetown University public health students on how #covid19 has been "the perfect storm of politics, PR, and polluted messages to the public."
Watch the recorded zoom presentation here: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/09/perfect-storm-of-politics-pr-polluted-messages-to-the-public/.
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Dylan
August 3, 2007 at 8:19 amThis is one of the reasons that I rarely trust to any health news that I see on televisions. If you want the accurate health information today, unfortunately you have to make your own research.
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