Another chapter has been written in the sorry series of unethical practices by local TV news operations in covering health news.
Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute criticizes the Radio-Television News Directors Association and a local Maine TV station – and rightly so. Excerpt:
“I disagree with Radio-Television News Directors Association Chairman Ed Esposito’s decision to allow WGME-TV to keep its Edward R. Murrow Award for a series of stories it produced about a medical team’s work in China.
Maine Foundation for Cardiac Surgery paid for WGME’s nine-day trip to Shanghai, which the Portland, Maine, station clearly disclosed at the beginning of each segment of its project, “The China Journey.” The stories were well-told, and the photojournalism and editing was strong. …
The station’s heart was in the right place, but it should have put its wallet there too. Not doing so now gives stations nationwide an out when the boss comes knocking with a free trip to cover a worthwhile story.”
Many stations may also make the claim that “their heart was in the right place” when they also accept medical industry money for sponsored segments that feature only the sponsors’ experts – without disclosing that on the air.
RTNDA needs to wake up to how its own code of ethics – a strong document – is only a meaningless piece of paper if it isn’t discussed and embraced by its members.
On Tompkins’ site, the Maine news director responds: “The foundation NEVER tried to influence our coverage in any way.”
They paid for the trip and got the coverage, didn’t they? And that was coverage they would not have received if they didn’t pay for the trip. To me, that’s pretty clear influence.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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
April 23, 2009 at 4:28 pmIn addition to the ethical sinkholes that come with accepting free trips or other favors from sources, the warping of editorial content is frightening.
If the stories were worth covering, then the expenses should be worth paying for.
Of course every newsroom has a budget and has to make choices about what to cover, but those decisions… as with every editorial decision… should be made without outside influence. And free plane tickets are a whopper of an outside influence.
One more thing… I’ll bet that behind closed doors the charity is smiling about their “Return on Investment.” I assume donations increased after the stories aired, perhaps covering much more than the cost of travel for the news crew.
Will other charities decide they have to start competing for media attention with payola? So much for serving the public interest without fear or favor.
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