FDA Manipulates the Media

[btdt]

 

How the FDA Manipulates the Media

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been arm-twisting journalists into relinquishing their reportorial independence, our investigation reveals. Other institutions are following suit

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/

"Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access—including ones from major outlets such as Fox News—and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. At the same time, the FDA cultivates a coterie of journalists whom it keeps in line with threats. And the agency has made it a practice to demand total control over whom reporters can and can't talk to until after the news has broken, deaf to protests by journalistic associations and media ethicists and in violation of its own written policies."

cherry picking much more at the link

But it is not hard to guess why journalists such as Ghosh were excluded. “It wasn't that they were not good enough or not liked enough,” Kiernan speculates. “There was a real effort here to control things, making sure that the elite of the elite covered this story and covered it in a certain way, which would then shape the coverage of all other journalists. It's very clearly a control effort.”

one for instance...

The FDA, too, quietly held close-hold embargoed briefings, even though its official media policy forbids it. Without a source willing to talk, it is impossible to tell for sure when or why FDA started violating its own rules. A document from January 2014, however, describes the FDA's strategy for getting media coverage of the launch of a new public health ad campaign. It lays out a plan for the agency to host a “media briefing for select, top-tier reporters who will have a major influence on coverage and public opinion of the campaigns.… Media who attend the briefing will be instructed that there is a strict, close-hold embargo that does not allow for contact with those outside of the FDA for comment on the campaign.”

Why? The document gives a glimpse: “Media coverage of the campaign is guaranteed; however, we want to ensure outlets provide quality coverage of the launch,” the document explains. “The media briefing will give us an opportunity to shape the news stories, conduct embargoed interviews with the major outlets ahead of the launch and give media outlets opportunities to prepare more in-depth coverage of the campaign launch.”

Ten reporters—from the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CNN and NPR—were invited to have their stories shaped. The day after the briefing, on February 4, everybody—except for the New York Times—ran with stories about the ad campaign. Independent comment was notably missing. Only NPR, which went live hours after the others, and CNN, in an update to its story midday, managed to get any reaction from anyone outside of the FDA. CBS plunked down an out-of-context quotation from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, probably in hopes that readers wouldn't notice that it was two months old. Nobody else seems to have tried to get anyone who could critique the ad campaign.  

 The result was a set of stories almost uniformly cleaving to the FDA's party line, without a hint of a question about whether the ad campaign would be as ineffective as many other such campaigns. Not one of the media outlets said anything about the close-hold embargo. From the agency's point of view, it was mission accomplished. 

part of another for instance story that did not go so well for the FDA...

"Of all the media outlets, the New York Times was the only one to mention the close-hold embargo: “FDA officials gave journalists an outline of the new rules on Wednesday but required that they not talk to industry or public health groups until after Thursday's formal release of the document.” (“I felt like I wanted to be clear with readers,” Sabrina Tavernise, the author of the story, later told Sullivan, the New York Times' public editor at the time. “Usually you would have reaction in a story like this, but in this case, there wasn't going to be any.”)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/

if you do read the article keep this name in mind "Felberbaum"  you will see a old tactic of FDA hiring a reporter who served them well reminds me of pharma hiring FDA folks after they get the drug passed... same old deal makers making deals or that is how it seems to me.  When they obvious questions came up about pharma and FDA head switching back and forth from FDA to pharma the answer given was the pool of qualified people was so small they had to overlap back and forth. 

Believe it is you want to....

peace all

 

 

[btdt]

if your still in a reading mood..

http://truthinmedia.com/truth-media-confronting-manipulation-big-pharma/

 

looks interesting

[nz11]

Looks interesting btdt gotta run out but will read it later

....great posting

[btdt]

Ended up here today via an pm... can't help but think about how many times I hear this phrase these days" FAKE NEWS"  it is constantly on the news and online media... if you think about it in terms of the above article ...    will let you decide for yourself...history is interesting. 

peace all

[Martina23]

I think there is something wrong by the FDA.

 

I asked for Pfizer Lyrica raw data of clinical studies on withdrawal, the lady told me to provide me with such information would take 3 years !!! I didnt know what should take there 3 years.  I spoke then with Healy who said that they can send me CSRs, this should go fast. Lady promised to send me these, since then she ignores me totally, I didnt get from her any data.  I have the feeling they are trying to wipe the clues (to hide all the evidence which would prove that something doesnt fit there)