Major Drug Companies and the Media
Who Regulates Pharmaceutical Company Advertising and Influence?
Sep 17, 2009
From the standpoint of the public, honest, well-researched, and unbiased health related news and information is expected, even assumed. Is it possible, however, that the financial and business ties between major drug companies and the media have affected content as well as pharmaceutical company advertising? Has the influence of drug companies and their advertising dollars indirectly, if not directly, censored health related news?
Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
Since 1997, when the FDA started to permit the pharmaceutical industry to practice direct-to-consumer advertising, the media has been bombarded with pharmaceutical company advertising — magazine ads, television commercials, and billboards, all toting the benefits of prescription drugs such as Lipitor and Seasonique. Is, for instance, Boniva the best solution for post-menopausal osteoporosis, or are their alternative ways that we can address our health, without side effects such as stomach ulcers and pain in the arms and legs, that the mass media is rarely or never mentioning?
Does the media question the medical information conveyed in ads which they display? When a healthy, thirty-something woman was displayed in a magazine ad about the blood thinner, Lovenox, insinuating that the drug would prevent the highly dangerous illness, deep vein thrombosis, the media did not check the content of the advertisement for misinformation. According to The Seattle Times article, "Suddenly Sick," written by Susan Kelleher and Duff Wilson (June 2005), deep vein thrombosis only affects the elderly who are immobilized or recovering from a surgery, not healthy young women.
Before direct-to-consumer advertising, the major drug companies placed ads in medical journals that targeted the health care community only. Pharmaceutical company advertising was not seen or heard in media designed for the general public. The regulations on pharmaceutical marketing were eventually loosened, making the United States one of two developed nations who allow direct-to-consumer advertising of name-brand drugs.
Since then, money spent on pharmaceutical company advertising has skyrocketed, reaching a total of $3.2 billion in 2003, and $4.2 billion in 2005, according to the Health Resource Center, Our Bodies, Our Lives. Meanwhile, drug sales have been steadily increasing.
Pharmaceutical Company Advertising Influence
The money spent on pharmaceutical company advertising is paid to the media outlets that put out their ads. This puts an enormous amount of pressure on medical journals, television stations, and magazines who print drug company ads to keep a valuable source of revenue happy. How could they print an article about the possible benefits of eating apples for acid reflux next to a full-page ad for Prilosec? From a business perspective, this does not make sense. The media has to find a medium between the wants and needs of their advertisers, and the wants and needs of the public.
Aside from the financial impact and subsequent pharmaceutical company influence on the media, there is the issue of interlocking directorate. This is a normal business practice in which a board member of one company also sits on the board of directors of another company, therefore, interlocking the interests of the two companies. According to an article written by Kate Murphy of FAIR (August 2009), "Single-Payer and Interlocking Directorates: The Corporate Ties Between Insurers and Media Companies," of the nine major media companies, six share a member on their board of directors with at least one pharmaceutical company board.
The Role of the Media in the Pharmaceutical Industry
From 1997 until 2002, hundreds of stories were published in favor of Pleconaril, an alleged wonder drug for the common cold. Once the FDA decided not to approve the drug, and the clinical trial results discredited its validity, the press coverage became almost non-existent. In this case, the media served only to help the drug company that developed Pleconaril, portraying the medication to the public as something completely positive without having all the research.
In the past, the media has had to deal with financial repercussions if they printed stories that the pharmaceutical industry was not comfortable with. For example, in 1976, when the New York Times published articles about medical malpractice, pharmaceutical firms threatened to stop advertising in the New York Times Company owned magazine, Modern Medicine, forcing the company to sell the publication.
Today, with direct-to-consumer advertising, the major drug companies have even more influence over media content. As much as the public may expect the media to be a watchdog of the medical industry, and publish health information for their benefit, in reality, the media may be forced to censor health related news when it would conflict with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
Sources:
Soley, Lawrence. "Censorship, Inc. The Corporate Threat to Free Speech in the United States." (Monthly Review Press, 2002).
Wilson, Duff. "Suddenly Sick." (The Seattle Times, June 2005).
 |
 |
 |
