[Ip-health] PBS: Public Trust Or Corporate Shill?

[James Love]

http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/10/pbs-public-trust-or-corporate-shill/

Pharmalot

PBS: Public Trust Or Corporate Shill?
October 28th, 2007 6:12 pm By Ed Silverman

For the second time this year, the Public Broadcasting Service has taken
a hit for running a program that was largely funded by medical products
companies with key interests in the subject matter. Earlier this year,
the issue arose when PBS aired an episode of a health series that was
underwritten by Glaxo - just as the drugmaker was awaiting FDA approval
to sell its Alli diet pill over the counter.

The latest dust up occurred this month as PBS aired a three-part series
called =E2=80=98The Mysterious Human Heart.=E2=80=99 As Roy Poses at Health=
 Care Renewal
notes, Medtronic and AstraZeneca were two of three corporate sponsors.
And not only do those companies sell heart-related products -
defibrillators and cholesterol meds, respectively - but both have had
troubles with those same products. Yet as one viewer wrote Mike Getler,
the PBS ombudsman, =E2=80=9Cviewers are never told about potential problems=
 with
those devices=E2=80=A6.or possible financial ties between the series=E2=80=
=99 on-camera
experts=E2=80=9D and the two companies.

The press release and =E2=80=98outreach tool kit=E2=80=99 both clearly note=
 that the
companies underwrote the series. =E2=80=9CBut missing from the glowing
approbation by PBS=E2=80=A6in the release, and what should be prominently
featured as well in the series,=E2=80=9D Jeff Chester, director of the Cent=
er
for Digital Democracy, writes Getler, =E2=80=9Cis any discussion of the ser=
ious
health-related risks from Medtronic and AstraZeneca products=E2=80=A6We bel=
ieve
that the involvement of these two heart-related commercial entities
illustrates disturbing flaws in the PBS underwriting guidelines. PBS
programming should not be supported by any concern that has a stake =E2=80=
=94
either financially or politically =E2=80=94 in the editorial content of the=
 show
or series.=E2=80=9D

tvadvertising1.jpgTo his credit, Getler asked the series producer and a
PBS exec about the accusations, and he admits =E2=80=9Cthe responses, espec=
ially
from PBS, do not address the real conflict, criticism and questions at
issue here. This program, and the criticisms, once again put the
spotlight on what has been a continuing source of viewer questioning and
complaint about several PBS-supported and promoted programs =E2=80=94 the
seeming inappropriateness of funders for a number of programs and the
residue of doubt that leaves in the mind of some viewers even though one
may not see or sense any hint of influence.=E2=80=9D

To underscore the extent of the problem, Poses found something the
critics and ombudsman didn=E2=80=99t: The content advisers to the series we=
b
site - Peter Libby, who is chief of cardiovascular medicine at the
Brigham and Women=E2=80=99s Hospital in Boston and Mallinckrodt Professor o=
f
Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Doug Zipes, professor of
medicine, pharmacology and toxicology at Indiana University - have ties
to the corporate sponsors. Libby has received grant support from,
consulted for, and served on a speakers=E2=80=99 bureau for AstraZeneca, an=
d
Zipes has received consulting fees or honoraria worth more than $10,000
from Medtronic. The conflicts weren=E2=80=99t disclosed on the site, though=
.

We understand that PBS funding is a dilemma, and that sponsorship
shouldn=E2=80=99t automatically imply influence over program content.
Nonetheless, PBS has a responsibility, at the very least, to do a better
job of disclosing information. And that can be accomplished by including
in its programs, web sites and press materials any potential conflicts
and, specifically, pertinent problems with products that address the
very issues raised in PBS programming.

Hat tip to Health Care Renewal

Tags:AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, PBS, Public Broadcasting
Service