A belated reply to your question, and sorry for not doing so sooner. I think, at the very least, PBS could have included not just the sponsor logos, but a brief mention of the products they make and sell, since these are pertinent to the heart. Should that include the safety issues? It could, of course. Perhaps, in the form of links to the product web site, which should include that info. Perhaps, that covers the bases.

best
ed

Well, if your point was to be provocative, then mission accomplished.

Let me ask you this: do you feel that Health Care Renewal’s call for inclusion of AstraZeneca’s and Medtronic’s specific safety issues had any place in that type of rather nondescript programming? That’s the type of overreaction and lack of perspective I’m talking about.

Well, two things. I wasn’t attempting to demonize anyone, and I honestly don’t think I did. I was trying to raise awareness and, by doing so, push for change.

And the headline was, for better or worse, designed to generate discussion. It was a question, not a conviction. And it served its purpose - we got a chance to go round on the subject and sort out what’s fact, what’s fantasy and what, if anything, could be improved. So I understand your point, but I have no regrets about this one.

Again, thanks for debating this.

ed

Again, I don’t disagree with the ideals — I disagree with the reflexive demonizing of the offense and the offenders regardless of the situation.

For instance, your blog post title is “PBS: Public Trust or Corporate Shill,” despite the fact that everyone seems to be in agreement that there was no shilling going on, and that the series was well balanced and without bias. Perhaps you were merely being snarky, but it goes to the point of painting all COIs and situations with the same broad brush.

You and HCR are not being unreasonable in wanting the COIs disclosed, but I do think you’re being unfair in characterizing this episode as something unseemly.

You asked a good question about overreacting, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask of PBS to cover all the right bases. Again, I think the endpoint, if you will, is to set a tone by taking steps to avoid perception issues, even when it involves organizations that have stellar reputations.

As for the scientists who acted as advisers, well, they had a long list of affiliations. I don’t see how it would hurt to also list their affiliations witho the corporate sponsors, especially if PBS sponsor did a better job of explaining its approach to the funding and programming. PBS has to take some responsibility for allowing the questions to be raised. If PBS had simply noted the obvious, the issue may not have been raised.

You may not agree, but I’m enjoying the discussion, nonetheless.

Cheers
ed

I agree and understand about the perception thing. The COI pendulum is far over to the suspicion side of things, but isn’t it also possible that it’s also over on the overreacting side of things? One would be hard pressed to look at this particular instance and see any real underhandedness, perception or no, especially when the corporate sponsors were so prominently featured.

You note that I noted that no one suggested the series had a problem. That wasn’t an oversight by me–indeed, it’s exactly why I pointed it out: no one had a problem with the content, but they still treated it as though it had a bias problem, and in the process, impugned the reputations of two highly respected scientists and clinicians, even if inadvertently.

As you know, this is a pet issue of mine as well. The COI Cult, as Tom Stossel calls them, have generally good intentions, but they have trouble picking their battles and often seem to treat every instance with the same degree outrage and call to arms regardless of the seriousness or context. It’s this lack of perspective–and the frequent reluctance to acknowledge it–that I find infuriating.

I understand your point. I think the issue here is one of perception. And in that regard, PBS could do a better job of providing full disclosure, if only to dispel the notion that any programming may somehow reflect commercial influence. No one suggested this latest series did have that problem. Rather, the idea is to avoid the issue from arising. The irony, by the way, is that PBS is in the communications business and underwrites some good journalism. So perhaps the expectation level is a bit higher. But the discussion is still worth having.

Thanks for writing in,

ed at Pharmalot