Public service. . .or “news-mercials”2

Of course there’s some different view not like me. It’s not exact opposite different views. I think that there’s some point when journalists report about hospital, medicine and disease they have to careful about what they said. When medical experts are quoted in news stories, the public reasonably assumes that their comments are guided solely by a desire to serve the public interest, reflect the integrity of their position and academic rank, and are independent of commercial relationships. But the intertwined nature of business and medical relationships is so pervasive today, and so poorly understood, that the public cannot reasonably evaluate expert comments without knowledge of the presence or absence of commercial ties. No experts should be quoted without clearly indicating, on the record, whether or not they have commercial ties to any companies that might benefit or be hurt by the issue at hand.
Also, the reporter should check previous research papers by the same authors. Unreported conflicts of interest and other issues that might be relevant to the current story often appear in other scientific papers by the same authors.
Unraveling the commercial bias that colors much of our medical research is a complicated undertaking, at best. Journalists often don’t have the statistical and research expertise to cut through the pro-industry spin, nor are they given the time needed to analyze complex research data. Reliance on press releases and news conferences gives voice primarily to commercial viewpoints, yet news organizations are under pressure to get news out to the public quickly on limited budgets. And there is also the lurking possibility of pressure from medical advertisers to present the news in ways that are consistent with their goals.
A middle ground is needed between simply passing on sensationalized, commercially generated versions of “breakthroughs” in medical science and undertaking time-consuming investigative reporting. Without this middle ground, the news media cannot fulfill their responsibility to the public to present well-reported and fair analyses of medical issues. When this is not possible, journalists have an obligation to let readers, listeners and viewers know the constraints that have prevented them from presenting such an assessment of the news. This is really hard that always makes neutral news but if you’re a journalist you have to try as best you can. Offer a fair and accurate picture of medical news, whether this is an achievable goal, we have to try 