Examining The Issues: Disease Mongering Or Saving Lives – Part III
This article is part three of of a three part series inspired by the Seattle Times special, “Suddenly Sick.†The Times’ series examines how the pharmaceutical industry promotes medications for a range of conditions, including hypertension and obesity. Click here to read other installments of “Disease Mongering Or Saving Lives?â€
Adam Cassels of the University of Victoria: “Journalists have a duty not to raise unrealistic expectations or to participate in disguised advertising. Because the news is such a trusted source of health information, journalists need to inject a higher dose of ‘healthy skepticism’ into their reporting.â€
Cassels was quoted in a wide-ranging June 2005 Seattle Times article titled: “Many new drugs have a strong dose of media hype.â€Â In the article, Duff Wilson outlines how pharmaceutical companies use a combination of advertising, work with third-party organizations, and public relations to inform the public about new treatments. According to Wilson, the media plays an insidious role in this process, by:
- Reporting on drug firms’ work with public health organizations to raise awareness for conditions that “tap into primal fears of death and disease, i.e., deep vein thrombosisâ€
- Printing or broadcasting drug commercials
- “Hyping up†drugs and vaccines that have no hope of reaching the market
- Publishing news articles do not highlight the side effects of medications
- Printing studies in medical journals that do not provide a complete picture about the safety and efficacy of medications
Since Wilson’s article appeared, there has been a lot of commentary on this issue. Critics of the media and the pharmaceutical companies say that both industries are promoting drugs that the public does not need. Others contend that they are helping people by highlighting information about the latest medical breakthroughs.
The Media & The Drug Industry: Uneasy Bedfellows
Whatever one believes, it is clear that the ongoing dance between the drug firms and the media will not end anytime soon. Here’s why:
- Reporters Have A “News Hole†To Fill: Although industry observers are currently debating whether the mainstream media (especially newspapers) is declining, the fact remains that journalists have a responsibility to report the news. In addition, their audience wants to know about the latest clinical trials and medical breakthroughs. As a result, they will continue to report on information from drug firms with greater or lesser degrees of scrutiny and detail.
- The Media Needs Advertising Dollars: Last year, industry observers predicted that pharmaceutical companies would spend less on DTC advertising. Instead, the opposite has happened as drug firms have advertised heavily in magazines and the Internet. One reason for this is that it is easier to include side effect information in print advertisements. The media needs advertising dollars to survive, so it will never turn down money from drug companies.
Although the pharmaceutical industry and the media have a symbiotic partnership, they are clearly uneasy bedfellows. Sometimes, the media is an ally of the drug industry, as when business reporters focus on a company’s pipeline or charitable activities. Other times it is an opponent, as evidenced by the New York Times’ reporting on Eli Lilly’s marketing of Zyprexa. Some have hailed the Times stories, while others felt they are based on inaccurate, old and incomplete information.
So, the question remains: Is the media pushing drugs or helping people to live healthier lives? The answer: Given the realities of the media business, it probably does a little of both. It’s up to you to decide which side of the line the media is on.
Learn More: Please see John Mack’s, recent podcast and blog post on this issue. Mack is the author of Pharma Marketing Blog.
