All over the country, daily journalists working on newspapers or on radio or TV are now also being asked to publish blogs – often without any additional pay for the additional work.
But I recently discovered a case where a reporter pressured to do a blog had that blog censored by a TV news director because he didn’t like what was in the blog.
The reporter – a TV health reporter – posted two entries about some questionable (I would call them unethical) practices in TV news. One referred to the practice of medical centers buying air time within newscasts and having the message appear as news. The posting asked blog visitors:
“What do you think of commercials for local health care behemoths that look like news? … Are you able to tell they are clearly commercials?”
The other blog entry was about subscription services that provide health news for stations to fill their newscasts. The reporter, whose station often uses such a service, wrote on the blog:
“I’ve noticed a lot of the subscription reports have to do with research. And not that I have anything against research — in fact, I think it’s a very important part of medical advancement — but I believe the mass media need to be very careful about highlighting investigational procedures, products, and techniques. …I worry sometimes these packages peddle false hope, or at least, premature hope.
What do you think of these subscription pieces? Can you tell when it’s something I’ve written versus a (subscription) piece? Do you think stations should even subscribe to (such) services?”
Without being told in advance, the reporter noticed that the blog entries had been deleted. The news director then called the reporter on the carpet and said that “He didn’t think it was right to ask viewers what they thought about something management had already decided to do.”
The reporter no longer blogs on the station website. That reporter asks if other reporters have had similar experiences, stating “it’s about reporters everywhere having viewpoints about what their own industry does, and not being able to express their views without fear of reprisal.”
Please weigh in if you know of other such in-house censorship of the free flow of ideas. In an era of transparency, there are apparently some editorial decisions that some news managers – at least this one – don’t want to shine a light on. That may be the best evidence there is for why the practices in question should be re-assessed.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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.
Andrew Holtz
November 26, 2008 at 8:35 amI’ve always been perplexed by people in news organizations (whether managers or reporters) who can’t seem to handle being questioned.
I’m heartened though to hear that this reporter is asking questions about the type of coverage that the station does. Viewers have a right to be informed and involved.
Ed Hardy
November 26, 2008 at 5:11 pmI despise “edumercials” or “news-mercials” they feel insulting as if I was actually going to believe that this is news. Give me a break. They keep doing it so it must work…sad.
Tristan Phillips
November 27, 2008 at 7:54 amPlease name the TV station in question. They need a public shaming for their censorship and blatant hypocracy.
Christine Gorman
November 30, 2008 at 6:18 pmGary,
I’m teaching a class on journalism judgment at NYU this May and am looking for some new case studies. I know you don’t want to name the individual reporter involved but can you identify the “subscriptions services” you’re talking about? Do you have any favorite examples of same? Could be interesting for my class.
Thanks,
Christine
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