Interesting question this. The media is manipulated all the time. Many
reporters seem to be unaware of the fact that the pharmaceuticals get pretty
stroppy if knocking copy is written, and will withdraw advertising. Since
the editors/owners depend on the advertising for profits, a de facto
censorship of copy occurs. This is effect is quite powerful.
The drug companies spend at least 10k per annum per GP on adverts, in one of
the most successful attempts to influence target behaviour (i.e. GP
prescribing) ever mounted. I was made acutely aware of this a decade ago
when I worked with an advertising company.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Pownall <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 24 February 1998 08:59
Subject: Re: leukotriene inhibitor for asthma
>As a reporter writing on health and medicine to pay the mortgage, I perhaps
>see things slightly differently.
Snip
>The media can be manipulated, as Ian Cox's original posting suggested, but
>I don't think it happens very often. Companies regularly spend huge amounts
>of money on PR and geenrate very little coverage because there is, at the
>root, no story there. On the whole we are a somewhat cynical bunch, and if
>we are doing our jobs properly, will check out the claims of company
>approved experts with others in the field.
>Pharmaceutical companies hope, of course, indirectly to influence GPs by
>making a splash about their new drug in the press. I can see how irritating
>it msut be for GPs to be faced with patients demanding a new drug, about
>which they are not fully informed. But like journalists, I suspect GPs tend
>not to listen very much when pharmaceutical companies talk about drugs
>which are 'soon' to be launched. Only when it is here and now do we pay any
>attention - hence the stories we (occasionally) write after some drug
>launches.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|