Last week, Steven Brill asked on the Columbia Journalism Review website, “Are Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley and Brian Williams hooked on Cymbalta?” Excerpt:
Every time I suffer through the (simultaneously timed) commercial breaks on one of the network evening news shows I wish I could read a story about prescription drug advertising on television. I’ll bet these ads now account for two-thirds or more of revenues for the network news shows, whose viewer demographics are apparently perfect targets for drugs directed at older people with erectile dysfunction, withering bones, dry eyes, insomnia, lung malfunction (as illustrated by an elephant sitting on some guy’s chest), incontinence, and whatever it is that is cured by something called Cymbalta, whose ads I think I saw on all three shows the other night.
To what extent does the federal government’s decision to allow, beginning in the mid-1990s, such direct-to-consumer ads keep these once-revered nightly news shows afloat?
This week, I learned that CBS apparently rejected an ad promoting the new movie, “The Three Stooges,” because it “makes light of prescription drug ads.” Read more on John Mack’s Pharma Marketing Blog and links therein. Here’s the movie ad:
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 (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.
Joyce Griffith
April 4, 2012 at 12:12 pmGo ahead and be upset. You should be. I started putting together information for a story I wanted to write on Rx drug advertising and quickly learned it’s a huge piece of the advertising economy. I believe the continual promotion of medical “solutions” is determintal to our health, but am puzzled about how it could be proved or eliminated. Keep up the good work.
David Finer
April 9, 2012 at 2:47 amThe US and New Zealand are the only countries in the world which allow DTCA (Direct-to-Consumer-Advertising) of Rx drugs. From what I have read, several studies demonstrate concomitant deleterious effects, among them increased medicalisation and “disease-mongering”, hiking drug costs for medically unjustifiable uses or products, over-treatment , etc. The Three Stooges ad pokes lighthearted fun at manipulative drug advertising, thus highlighting these disturbing developments. The rejection by CBS shows the networks are more interested in ad sales from Big Pharma than public health and freedom of speech. I doubt if anyone will be particularly surprised by this, but beyond protesting such obvious self-interested censorship, popular protest should seek to change existing laws to ban DTCA and continue to maintain the ban in Europe and elsewhere, against the constant siege of the pharmaceutical industry and its stooges.
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