Montel: The Calm Before The ‘Blow Up’
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 6th, 2007 // 12:30 pm
For those who could only imagine what led to the infamous exchange last week in which professional gabber Montel Williams threatened to ‘blow up’ a newspaper intern and her colleagues, we offer you this interview. You can see Montel - in front of the bright orange Partnership for Prescription Access truck - get irritated at the line of questioning over pharma research and pricing. (It was only later, in his hotel lobby, that he unnerved the young woman and her crew, when they arrived to cover another event). UPDATE: Just to be clear, this is not the exchange that caused the ruckus, which occurred after the interview shown here.
Hat tip to the Prescription Access Litigation Project blog and PharmaGossip
Alan
After seeing this, I think that this issue has been overblown. This appears to be much ado about nothing. I think Montel was well within reason to keep the interview within the boundaries he did and I don’t see anything inappropriate about this interview or his answers. I certainly don’t see the hostility that was portrayed in the previous stories about this interview leading up to his blow up. Perhaps that, like this, isn’t being accurately potrayed either. To me this looks like the questions were a witch hunt. And now we are to believe that the intern “happned to arrive at another event”? How innocent.
Ed Silverman
Hi Alan,
What we don’t see here - for better or worse - is the encounter in which Williams is said to have threatened the intern and her colleagues. And it is that interaction for which he received criticism, not the exchange in this video, although he does appear to get testy toward the end.
As to your question about the intern arriving at another event, the Savannah Morning News verified she was with her colleagues on another assignment. This is the link to the report the paper ran this past weekend -
http://savannahnow.com/node/407450
We’ll both have to take her editors at their word.
I hope this helps,
Regards
ed at Pharmalot
John Mack
It’s interesting that Montel feels the reporter’s questions about drug prices and drug company profits were inappropriate because, as he said, he was there merely as a “patient advocate.” Let’s remember that the PPA program was set up because many people cannot afford their medications. Therefore, a question inquiring about how drug company profits might play a role in that is wholly appropriate.
And to make matters worse, he blames patient law suits against pharma as the main culprit for higher prices. He also was off by 100X what it costs to develop a new drug — he said $8 billion, whereas the drug industry claims $800 billion.
I’d love to know Montel’s iternary to see if he will be in my neck of the woods. I’d be out there with a “Blow Up Montel” sign!
Alan
Ed
I uderstood the context of this video correctly when I wrote my comment. My point is that the coverage on your blog and others portrayed this lead up event to be much worse then what I saw here.
If you and others are going to engage on this issue, I suggest though to be fair some back checking take place to verify the story of the Savanah newspaper. People are quick to portray Montel as the bad guy, all I am suggesting is that due dillegence be done and someone verify what the newspaper is saying about their version of the events. We are supposed to blindly trust the newspapers version?
Doesn’t anyone else think that some due dillegence is necessary before this whole story was put out there? Or is this a case of “don’t get in the way of a good story with the facts?”
Ed Silverman
Hi Alan,
First, please don’t confuse Pharmalot with other sites, for better or worse. I speak for no one but me over here at Pharmalot. I’m not responsible for what other journalists, bloggers or web sites may publish. And I mention this because, if you go back and read my earlier posts, I stuck only to the facts when writing about what occurred. If you read carefully, you’ll see that I attributed what I posted to the published reports, primarily the Savannah Morning News, and included links.
With one exception, I never offered an opinion. And the only criticism I offered was Montel’s alleged remark about threatening to ‘blow up’ the intern and her colleagues. But I never came out and said he should be fired - I did ask my readers to answer a poll, and I later suggested PhRMA find someone with a different temperament next time and who is better equipped to answer questions.
And please note that Williams never denied making the remark and, in fact, he apologized for doing so. If he felt he was being railroaded and the whole thing was a fairy tale, he had the opportunity to refute their account. He didn’t do that - he apologized. If he had denied making the remark, I assure you that I would have reported that and run a different type of post.
The issue here isn’t that Williams was testy toward the end of the interview, although he shouldn’t be surprised when asked questions about the cost of meds - he’s a paid spokesperson and he puts himself out there on behalf of industry to address that very issue. People who do what I do for a living are accustomed to the bum’s rush: some industry spokespeople are, sometimes, curt or refuse to answer questions. The real issue here was his threatening remark, which is over the top. And that’s what attracted attention.
I hope I’ve cleared this up. I understand your point about due diligence; I spend a lot of time reporting some posts, fact-checking others and, sometimes, spiking an item if I’m not sure of the accuracy. There is a saying in journalism - if your mother says she loves you, check it out. That’s why I include links so we’re all clear on where info comes from if info in one of my items isn’t something I’ve reported first-hand myself.
This story was out there from the moment he opened his mouth. And again, the subsequent words that spilled out were an apology, not a denial. If the facts later turn out to be different and there’s a need to correct the record, I will gladly do so. But I do believe that I approached this properly. Alan, I’m not upset or trying to upset you - tone can be lost in e-mails and comments. I’m just trying to clarify where I’m coming from and how I go about my work.
Thanks for stopping by,
ed
Alan
Ed
I thoroughly enjoy your site and read it almost every day and sometimes a couple of times a day to see what is new. I appreciate how you approach your site, and the prespective you take.
I would have to say that for the most part we see things differently, but that is precisely why I read and respect your site.
You may have deduced that I am in the Pharma Industry. I continue to be frustrated by the attacks on the industry. My only point I was trying to make about the Montel piece is that from my perspective the clip didn’t match the written build up. What I took particular issue with about the whole piece is when you said we would have to trust the editors in Georgia.
We had to stop trusting the editors when they became a part of the story. My point is that they were no longer editors at that point, and should have been vetted as any other part of a story would be vetted since they were an interested party.
It may sound cynical, but everyone has an agenda, and I may be jaded, but it is worth someone in the media cycle stopping to do their due dillegence on the intern and editors once they became part of the story. Regardless of apologies issued by Montel or PhRMA. Before the story was ever a story, that basic step should have been taken.
That is my only point. I can’t nor won’t defend what Montel said. It was completely inappropriate. I only want to hold the media to the same standards they would hold themselves too for any other story that they weren’t a part of. If that didn’t happen, shame on the media.
Ed Silverman
Hi Alan,
I see your point - essentially, we were all left to take the word of three journalists who became part of a story, instead of merely reporting the story. And that’s a difficult position for any journalist - especially since others may question their role, motives and reactions, as you’re doing.
The only reason I indicated earlier that I didn’t doubt their version is because Williams didn’t dispute their version. You could view this as a he-said, she-said situation - either Williams threatened to blow someone up, or he didn’t. My point in my last note was that if they were lying, Williams could have - and I would hope, would have - accused them of lying. But he didn’t. And he also apologized. That’s why I wrote what I wrote.
If he had denied their version of events, I assure you there would have untold numbers of people questioning that intern, her colleagues and their editors. Then, the process you would’ve like to have seen undertaken would have played out. But again, since Williams acknowledged what was said, that vetting became moot.
You’re right - everyone has an agenda. The question then becomes - what is that agenda? And how does that influence a situation or our view of a situation? Did the intern and her colleagues have an agenda? Were they really walking through the hotel and stumble into Williams innocently? Or were they there to bait him? You’re right - I can’t answer that beyond what you and I have both read about this episode. But again, if there was more to their exchange - or something very different about the words that were exchanged - I would think Williams would have said so.
And for the sake of conversation - even if they had gone to the hotel in hopes of baiting him, he didn’t have to say what he did about blowing someone up. He should have known better, especially if he thought he was being baited, which apparently he did.
By the way, when I offered my two cents about what pharma ought to do next time a PPA spokesperson is needed, I pointed out this is an industry that generally does a poor job of explaining itself. I didn’t write that because I wanted to go on the attack. I was noting what I believe to be the case after following this industry for more than a dozen years. The stereotype about the tin ear syndrome too often applies to pharma. I wrote what I did to suggest improvement, not take a cheap shot.
Anyway, thanks for writing back. I enjoy the discussion and hearing your point of view.
Cheers
ed
Alan
Ed
I couldn’t agree more with you about the industry’s ability to get its message out more effectively. The old school mentality is on its way out across the industry, both in terms of business models and how it approaches everything from R&D, to communications. The arrogance has to disappear, and a willingness to engage in a transparent dialogue with our critics has to emerge. You are in a position to tell us whether or not you are seeing that change, since as an insider, it is hard for me to tell. I have seens signs of that change, but now wait for its inertia to gather more momentum.
I agree with your comments above, with the only caveat being that the best way to put out a fire sometimes is to stop providing fuel for flames. There is no doubt in my mind that Montel has a responsibility he failed to uphold by ultimately getting himself in the situation he did. What we don’t know and will likely never know is if and how he may have been baited by the newspaper staff.
This industry is filled with hundreds of thousands of people all working towards a goal of helping sick people. People dedicating their lives to discover cures for illness and diseases, and then battle an ever increasing difficult and more expensive FDA system. Because so many people use our products, we are a ripe political and media target. To your point, I think the industry has recognized the critical need to improve their communication, but that change won’t happen overnight, and people’s perceptions will take a long time to change. My hope is that its not to late in coming, and that our industry as a patient, has enough time to heal.