"Prescription for Bias," indicating that there is a “recurring networks bias against the pharmaceutical industry.” BMI charges that TV journalists treat “drugs as an entitlement rather than an expensive to create product, refusing to credit and often ignoring entirely the companies that made the medicine.” The group is urging the networks to clean up their act by: -Mentioning the manufacturer: BMI says that journalists should be sure to reference the company when discussing a drug and, where possible, include commentary from company representatives.
-Avoiding extremes: BMI asserts that TV media tends to portray medicines as “perfect cures” or “dangerous killers.” Rather than doing this, journalists should “relay the pros and cons of drugs” and tell patients to rely on their physicians for guidance.
-Removing passion: BMI urges reporters to speak “dispassionately on the role of money in medicine. [Don’t] just report on the costs of drugs to the consumer, but the costs borne by companies in researching and developing them [i.e., Tufts research indicating that companies spend an average of $800 million on R&D.]”
-Bringing pharma into stories: According to BMI “news consumers gain a fuller perspective on the issue when drug company executives can bring the perspective of the industry to bear.”
After learning about the study, I spoke with Dan Gainor, director of BMI, to discuss the research. We had a very interesting conversation and I told him my verdict on the study. Overall, I think many of BMI's recommendations make sense as they represent good journalism. However, I believe there’s more to this story.
