Journalist Paul John Scott of the Rochester Post Bulletin writes, “Mayo, Star Tribune form content partnership.” He begins:
Mayo Clinic has entered into a sponsored content deal with the Star-Tribune to generate health, disease and condition treatment related info-graphics for the Twin Cities’ largest newspaper.
The clinic describes the arrangement as an opportunity to distribute its medical content and introduce itself to a broader audience. The newspaper describes the agreement as an advertising deal that enables the paper to offer content from a trusted source of health related information.
Scott interviewed me for my opinion of the arrangement, and he then wrote:
Schwitzer says it’s too early to tell what the arrangement means for health reporting at the Star Tribune but says it warrants scrutiny as the series evolves.
“Not having seen the content, I raise potential concerns that I would raise about any such arrangement,” he wrote in an email. “Anytime any health care entity enters into an exclusive sponsorship arrangement with any news organization for placement of that health care entity’s information within news space, there is cause for concern. Who will edit, verify, question the information?”
“Will the Strib be as tough in investigating issues that have a Mayo angle now that the exclusive sponsorship agreement is in place?”
He took special interest in the comments by (Steve Yaeger, vice president and chief marketing officer for the Star Tribune) that “Star Tribune and Mayo Clinic are two trusted and iconic Minnesota brands. We’re proud to partner with Mayo Clinic to tell their story in a unique and relevant way.”
“Is that the job of a newspaper?,” Schwitzer wrote. “To ‘partner’ in exclusive arrangements to tell sponsors’ stories in a unique way? Or is it a newspaper’s job to independently vet claims, to question them, to compare them to others doing the same thing or to others doing something differently — and to ask why?”
“But this is the new journalism. Readers can expect more such deals.”
Three months ago today, Trudy Lieberman wrote, “Questions about Mayo Clinic deal with Minneapolis TV station.” The new deal, described in the Rochester newspaper, is a somewhat similar situation – although this time involving the state’s largest newspaper, the Star Tribune. And that statement by the newspaper’s marketing VP – “We’re proud to partner with Mayo Clinic to tell their story in a unique and relevant way” – also puts the ethics of this deal in an entirely different league.
We will continue to monitor these new forms of “journalism” and new “partnerships” between news organizations and the entities they’re supposed to be reporting on.
Addendum on September 20:
Here’s a fresh example of what can happen when newspapers partner with local medical centers in deals that allow the health care entity to place its content within news space.
The Las Vegas Sun published content created by Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, “Prostate Cancer and the Importance of Early Detection.” On this page, the content is referred to as a “story,” not an ad.
And that “story” states: “most men will need to be screened annually.”
Not even the American Urological Association – the professional organization of the doctors who treat prostates – make that statement.
Did anyone at the Sun vet this statement? It reflects the opinion of the urologists at the hospital providing the content.
This is why our concern about newspapers abdicating their responsibility on such deals is not merely hypothetical.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
John hanner
September 19, 2015 at 9:19 pmSeems a little unethical.
Pierrette Mimi Poinsett MD
September 21, 2015 at 4:53 pmYes this partnership is concerning. However I am more concerned about Mayo Clinic and Hootsuite
entering into a partnership to provide Health Care Social Media certification/education to physicians. http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read/category/Lifestyle/article/mayo_clinic_news_net-posted_a_socialmedia_certification_program_for_hea-tca. . $499 a pop, CME provided- no mention of training about conflict of interest.
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