I focused on pharma because that’s what I do on this site. I did reach out to the Unity communications person, but still have not heard back.

I understand, of course, about limited resources, particularly with the newspaper industry undergoing turmoil. But idealistic as it may sound to some, I do think Unity should have tried to organize such a panel itself, and perhaps, could have reached out to experts already in the Chicago area. An appearance before dozens or hundreds of influential journalists is a good way to spend a couple of hours if you’re a researcher or specialist seeking a higher profile.

Again, I fully support educational panels at such gatherings. And I didn’t suggest anyone who attended the Novo Nordisk diabetes seminar was brainwashed. In my view, the issue is whether Unity wants to open the door to the potential for undue influence.

Cheers
ed

I guess you answered my biggest concern and that is that you based your “editorial” on a WSJ reporter (who I also don’t think attended) who we assume spoke to someone at NN — you then expounded on that and in my opinion took it to a level of questioning the merits or wisdom of the organizers of UNITY on how they determine who and what companies should be permitted to provide funding? I could agrue that the media companies were more successful in self promotion than any others who were providing funding. Does that make it okay for them? Do they not have an agenda? They are owned by very large corporations and have a lot of influence on reporting! You have to ask the people at UNITY if they are faced with a limited resource pool? I am not so sure that there are many who will step up to the plate and fill the gap.

I for one am happy that Lilly, NN, and other non media companies underwrote programs as it added to the robustness of the conference. In my opinion.

I still don’t see why pharma underwriting costs to educate journalists provided they are “truly” unbranded and non biased is an issue? I certainly did not walk away with a feeling that I was “brainwashed” in any form that luncheon or Lilly’s plenary session.

I respect your opinion, but this is mine.

No, I wasn’t there, as I indicated in one of my earlier comments. And I didn’t accuse anyone of underhanded activities.

And I also noted in an earlier comment that the effort to provide education about diabetes is worthwhile and commendable. Did you read my subsequent remarks?

To your other remark, no, again, I wasn’t at the event, unfortunately, to see the Lilly presentation. I don’t have an agenda against anyone. I relied on the report from the WSJ blog, as I indicated with the attribution and the link in my post, for better or worse.

The criticism I leveled was at the decision to allow Novo Nordisk to fund and organize the event, whether or not the company - or anyone else on the panel - offered one-sided material or presentations.

The fundamental issue is whether it’s appropriate to allow a company to fund and organize such an event when it theoretically stands to benefit. As I indicated, I believe the answer is no.

If diabetes education is important enough to gain the attention of the convention organizers, they could have found another way to create the forum. Why do you have a problem with that notion?

Regards
ed

I applaude NN for raising this critical issue as it does affect minorities in a huge way and is a growing problem.

I don’t think UNITY has done anything wrong in trying to expand outside of the media giants to encourage other entities with a vested interest in solving this problem to participate at all.

Personally I feel you are making a mountain out of a mole hill — speak to anyone who attended (did you?) the luncheon and I am sure they will tell you that they agree the pharma “support” was invisible and the gain to we who are trying to raise this issue within our constituents was invaluable!

In the episode concerning Unity, the journalism group could - and should - have found a way to educate its members about diabetes without relying on funding and organizing from a company that stands to benefit from diabetes treatments.

In my view, this logic should extend to other situations, such as the one you pose. Again, my remarks were targeted at Unity for making this scenario possible. The journalists who attended simply showed up and I’m going to take an educated guess that few would say they were compromised. Of course, some may take a very hard line. But again, the real issue, to me, was that Unity allowed Novo Nordisk to run the show in the first place.

To answer your other question - I won’t pretend to speak for other journalists, but I prefer to keep everything at arm’s length. You want to talk over lunch, fine. Either I pay for both of us or we get separate checks. I’ve been doing this for many years. Now, have I had a nosh at a company press conference in years past? Yes, especially when an hours-long event was held at a location where no other food was readily available. (And so long as I made sure the public relations person tasted it first and didn’t get sick). There’s no law about any of this. Just an effort to use common sense.

The issue you’re asking about is one of appearance. But again, I’m not chastising the journalists who attended the Unity lunch. My criticism was addressed specifically to the convention organizers. They should have known better than to create this situation.

Hope this helps,
ed

Ok, here’s a scenario. Suppose I offered to buy you lunch in the city and tell you a little about my employer and my perspective on the pharma industry. Would you turn me down? Just offer to pay for your own lunch?

Seriously, I’m genuinely curious here. I’m not trying to be a smart***. If someone offers me lunch at a conference in order to tell me about a new product, I gladly take the free lunch! (and I learn a little too, of course) So I’m just wondering what ethical standard you hold yourself to in journalism.

As a former member of SPJ (many, many years ago), I figured that there might be a part of the Code of Conduct that covers this. However, and unfortunately, the Unity function seems to fall in a gray area. Here’s what the SPJ code of conduct says (i only included part of the COI section).

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Atlex