While acknowledging the quality of the reporting at STAT — and the search for new revenue to support good journalism — Health News Review wonders why The Boston Globe life science spin-off has to take ads from the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbying group.
Some STAT readers might see PhaRMa as a champion of just another health-related industry, like medical software or consulting services. Others question the industry’s research, pricing and marketing practices as evidence of a commitment to profits over healing and access.
So, HNR argues that the ads allow the “industry to buy juxtaposition to messages that often call their practices into question.”
Worth noting that my STAT newsletter arrives with different sponsors on different days. Last week’s included J&J, Amgen, a life science software maker, or none at all.
I am sure that STAT allows no editorial influence by this or any other sponsor. Their hard-nosed coverage of pharmaceutical industry news is top notch…
But I do not praise their front office decision to accept this sponsorship deal. It startles me and bothers me every time I see that PhRMA logo on the STAT newsletter. And I think it could raise legitimate questions in discerning readers’ minds. Journalism ethics dictates that one should strive at all costs to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Was it necessary for STAT to enter into this sponsorship deal? STAT just introduced a premium subscription plan. I hope that works for them; maybe it will generate enough income so that they wouldn’t feel compelled to swim in the murky waters of the PhRMA sponsorship deal…
Certainly PhRMA is thrilled with STAT saying “Yes” – allowing them to buy their way into regular appearances in the STAT newsletter. This is a foot in the door for an industry to buy juxtaposition to messages that often call their practices into question. It would be understandable if any reader’s head was spinning with thoughts of “What’s going on here?”