There has been no need for the Watchdog to weigh in on the Planned Parenthood/Komen fiasco this week. We generally tend to write about things that otherwise might go un-noticed. This issue – deservedly – was inescapable this week in news stories and through social media.
We remind you that we tend to focus on communications issues – on messages affecting the public dialogue about health care. In that spirit, we compiled some of the past posts we’ve published just in the past two years on Komen’s public messages.
July 27, 2011
Website accuses Jennifer Ashton & CBS Early Show of bias on mammography “debate”
This was actually more of an example of a media ethics issue – but it shows how some journalists have had a love affair with the Komen Foundation that may have led to imbalanced coverage.
Jun 1 2011
A new stink over breast cancer fundraising, lawsuits, and perfume
Northern Minnesota sled-dog race fundraiser gets threatening letter from Komen attorney. And Komen’s “Promise Me” perfume peddling is criticized by breast cancer bloggers.
Feb 4 2011
Journal editorial: some health organizations are pitchmen for food industry
The journal of the Canadian Medical Association – CMAJ – published an editorial this week, “Partnerships between health organizations and the food industry risk derailing public health nutrition”. Komen’s finger-lickin’ linkup with Kentucky Fried Chicken was one of them.
January 7, 2011
Komen supporter Colbert parodies “Lawsuits for the Cure”
Comedian Stephen Colbert, who says he is “a huge supporter of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation,” nonetheless took a sarcastic swing at the organization this week “for spending almost a million dollars a year in donor funds to sue… other groups” for using the phrase “for the Cure” in their promotions.
Nov 24 2010
Center for Health Media & Policy finds other losers in “The Biggest Loser”
See the Center for Health Media and Policy blog post about something that bugged them in the “The Biggest Loser” TV program. Excerpt: “What no one missed this week was the constant and prominent placement for Ford and their “Warriors in Pink” promotion, benefiting Susan G. Komen, the breast cancer fundraising juggernaut.”
August 5, 2010
Who owns pink ideas or cure slogans? Welcome to the Charity Brawl
There may be just a few more important things to spend one’s time on in the field of breast cancer. But the Wall Street Journal reports on an ugly dispute, “Charity Brawl: Nonprofits Aren’t So Generous When a Name’s at Stake.” Excerpt quote: “It’s startling to us that Komen thinks they own pink.”
April 20, 2010
The “Weighty Matters” blog criticizes Komen’s KFC deal.
January 12, 2010
Several Komen examples listed in 5 paragraphs in this story.
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.
George
February 6, 2012 at 10:26 amFunny parody on the “Buckets for the Cure” campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIBdh0BIze8
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