By Gary Schwitzer
"Should a journalist, even one who has been retired from
local TV news for nearly four years, leverage the credibility he
developed as an objective, independent reporter to tout one insurance
company for pay?"
That’s the question Eric Deggans, TV/media critic of the St. Petersburg Times asks
about longtime Tampa Bay area TV anchor Bob Hite now hawking one
company’s Medicare Advantage plan in infomercials. Hite retired from TV
news several years ago.
Deggans reports:
"The blurring of lines between advertising and journalism still makes some TV news experts uneasy.
"It is really awkward and uncomfortable," said Deborah Potter, a
former CBS and CNN correspondent now serving as executive director for
Newslab a training center based in Washington, D.C. "You can’t tell
(retired) people to pass up an opportunity. But transparency is key; if
there’s the potential for confusion in the viewers’ mind, that’s
troubling."
Hite isn’t alone. Former WTVT-Ch. 13 anchor Frank Robertson, who left
the station in 2009 after nearly 21 years, appears in a different ad
for Optimum, sitting behind what looks like an anchor desk trading lines
with a woman who looks like a co-anchor.
"That’s probably why I do get selected for so many spots; they do
feel I have some credibility," said Robertson, who also has voiced ads
for a local chiropractic practice and a medical security device. "I do
feel, once you’ve established yourself as a commercial spokesperson, you
can’t go back. You’re not the news guy anymore."
The company plans to air Hite’s half-hour infomercial about 200 times
through early December; Robertson’s ad could air up to 500 times,
placed in local newscasts when seniors are likely watching, said Joe
Vessio, head of sales and marketing for Freedom Health Care and Optimum.
…
"All these ads are terribly confusing for people," said Charles
Franckle, a retired economist who works as a volunteer counselor through
the state-funded SHINE program (Serving Health Insurance Needs of
Elders). "All of them are just touting the advantages and none of the
disadvantages."
It’s ironic that Hite shows such an interest in Medicare and health policy issues now. In a 2005 BMJ article,
I described my 2004 election-year analysis of three TV stations’
coverage of health policy issues and one of the three was Hite’s WFLA
when he was the anchor. How interested was his prime-time news show in
such issues back then in an election year? My findings:
"WFLA devoted only 84 seconds to the Bush-Kerry health
platforms in six stories. Serving the Florida Gulf coast, heavy with
senior citizens, WFLA managed only three stories in 10 months on
Medicare, totalling less than 2.5 minutes."
The Australian has been running articles and
video clips about health policy in a series called "Health of the
Nation", sponsored by an Australian drug industry group. The series
culminated in a glossy, 24-page magazine that included feature articles,
and advertorials and advertisements for the drug industry.
Journalist Melissa Sweet has published concerns about the arrangement in the BMJ (full text available only to subscribers).
In it, she writes that the Australian drug industry group…
…"said that the arrangement rose out of meetings between
its advertising agency and (the news organization’s) promotions and
advertising teams, ‘which recognised common interests.’
…
(The drug industry group), which also sponsors health journalism awards
run by the National Press Club of Australia, would not reveal the value
of the deal with the Australian, saying that it was ‘commercial in confidence.’ "
On her blog, Sweet also published
more detailed concerns raised by a number of observers, including what I
wrote to her in an email in response to her request for comment:
"The Association of Health Care Journalists Statement of
Principles includes a clause that states that journalists must
"Preserve a dispassionate relationship with sources, avoiding conflicts
of interest, real or perceived."
Another clause states "Deny favored treatment to advertisers and
special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage. "
Is this a dispassionate relationship? I don’t think so. It’s
courting financial deals with the subjects of news stories. That’s
pretty passionate.
In expectation of all of the claims by both parties that the
relationship is "clean" and that the conflict is not real, it doesn’t
make much for one to perceive a conflict.
And therein you’ve introduced a doubt in the public’s mind about the
integrity of editorial decision-making – if not now on this project,
then in the future. If the paper doesn’t aggressively report on future
drug industry issues, how will the public know what to think of it?
The seed of doubt will have been planted. Journalism can’t afford that.
Is this favored treatment? You bet it is – if you believe, as I do,
that the job of journalism is to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the
comfortable." How do those without deep pockets gain access to the
pages of the paper in like manner? If they don’t, then this is favored
treatment – isn’t this simply checkbook journalism? News for hire?
Since when do journalists partner with/collaborate with/have
commercial agreements with (you name the correct term for this alliance)
the drug industry they must cover?
I’m sure that the newspaper will say that they retain complete
editorial control over the content. I’ve heard that before from
American news organizations that take money in similar ethically
challenged deals. But think about this: even by entering into this
arrangement, the newspaper has agreed to publish content that they
otherwise would not have published. No matter what that content is, the
money on the table has influenced editorial decision-making. If not,
why didn’t the newspaper publish the material without being paid to do
so?
No matter how you spin it, this is the drug industry influencing public discussions in one more infectious way.
Journalists should be sniffing out and exposing such deals – not being party to them."