[Pharm-policy] Salon.com: Andrew Sullivan & PHRMA ($)

[Mike Palmedo]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/07/12/sullivan/index.html

(To Andrew Sulivan's note about this, entitled "Screw You," click on
the link in the third paragraph.)

Woe is me-zine
After bemoaning attacks from the "far left," Andrew Sullivan returns a
sponsorship from the pharmaceutical industry.

By Daryl Lindsey

<snip>

Sullivan's attempt to achieve what has eluded most online journalism
ventures -- make his Web site self-sustaining, maybe even make a profit
-- landed him in new trouble with his critics this week, after the story
matter-of-factly reported that Sullivan had signed up his first
corporate sponsor: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America.

PhRMA is the association that looks out for the interests of industry
giants like Pfizer and Merck on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. What the
Times failed to report is that Sullivan has used his own Web site, as
well as his posts at the New York Times Magazine and the New Republic to
repeatedly -- and controversially - defend the pharmaceutical industry
against criticism over its role in the global AIDS pandemic.


The controversy over Sullivan's site sponsor was short-lived: After
reporters from Salon and other news organizations made calls to
Sullivan's editors, as well as to journalism experts, about the ethics
of a journalist being personally sponsored by an industry he frequently
defends, Sullivan announced he would return the $7,500 annual
sponsorship. But the larger question raised by the flap isn't likely to
go away: How can a one-person "me-zine" develop ethical standards that
allow it to accept the kind of advertising and sponsorships that go to
corporate media monoliths, without the conflict of interest taint that
naturally goes along with a journalist getting the personal backing of a
controversial patron?

<snip>