
How the FDA Manipulates the Media - runesoerensen
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/
======
jnordwick
This is really disturbing:

From the article: _" 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."_

So let see if I understand this...

1- They tell their friendly reporters who they can and can't talk to with
conditional embargos.

2- They don't let reports they view as hostile into the press releases.

3- They actively thwart these reporters viewed as hostiles by intentionally
telling them lies and half-truths.

This is completely absurd, A federal agency is manipulating the story it wants
and the side it wants to tell it. It is picking the winners and losers, and
the winners keep quiet about the scam because it they start to be seen as
trouble makers, soon they will start getting the Fox News treatment too.

~~~
Fordrus
See, I do _feel_ for the FDA. Trying to message things properly is like trying
to send a smoke signal in a hurricane.

When, for any given thing you want to regulate, there are 4 incredibly wealthy
special interest groups trying to warp your message to protect the profit
margins of the companies they represent, rather than keep safety or anything
else in mind there, making sure that you don't take "Totally reasonable
measure A" and get the people you're protecting messaged, "HOW DARE YOU, MY
FREEEEDOM!" \- that's quite difficult.

But despite my understanding of that, the HUGE problem there is that "Totally
reasonable measure A" and "Draconian Evil Measure X" look _almost exactly the
same_ to us onlookers, and when the FDA, or _anyone_ , uses "Morally Ambiguous
Embargo Y" to protect their actions, why, the _rational response_ from us as
onlookers is the _ASSUME_ that they're performing "Draconian Evil Measure X."

So what, exactly, is the answer? I don't think there IS one presently out
there that isn't incredibly messy, but I hope we can still discover it - that
is, figure out how to protect the almost certainly true and reasonable actions
from the 'bad guys,' while not falling afoul of the rational reaction of the
'good guys' (us, in this case, the people being protected) and coming under
attack from THEM.

~~~
wooter
This is apologism. I expect an expensive organization, that I pay for, to make
their the case to the public without dirty tricks and intimidation. And I
expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to investigate
and report with integrity. I see plenty of fair, loud, and clear venues the
FDA could have used.

~~~
Avshalom
>>And I expect the news sources that I am intelligent enough to pick to
investigate and report with integrity.

Right, but see you shouldn't because that's hilariously naive.

~~~
omginternets
You're not using the word "expect" in the same sense he is.

He's _demanding_ transparency and good faith from the FDA.

~~~
Avshalom
No no, it doesn't matter _demanding_ news sources investigate and report with
integrity is just as naive as _assuming_ they do.

~~~
omginternets
Again, I don't think he's assuming anything. I read his comment as using
"expect" to mean "they really really _realy_ should, and it's a problem if
they're not".

------
ISL
Are there good references for journalistic standards for embargos?

From a science (and future funding) perspective, large collaborations with
important results are interested in making a splash (which, referenced in the
article, backfired for BICEP). They're interested in quality reporting, but
they want to have the opportunity to bring the discovery (think Higgs,
gravitational waves, etc.) to the world.

Science stories are hard to report, as the journalist, even one with a science
background, needs to come quickly up to speed with a nuanced field.

What's the best way to ensure that a science story can be reported well, as
argued for in this article, without the embargo getting jumped?

"Hello, Dr. Not-in-ATLAS/CMS physicist, we've never met before, but I work for
the NYT and I'm working on a story appearing Thursday, around the same time as
the CERN press conference. If both experiments had observed a single Higgs at
125 GeV mass, what would it mean? Interesting. Also, please don't tell
anyone."

Such an embargo would last only tens of seconds after the physicist hung up
the phone (and for good reason, as free exchange of information is paramount
in academia).

How would you like to see scientists report results? Would you prefer that
researchers present results to an unprepared press at the same time as the
journal article appears, with improved reporting a week later, or get informed
but embargoed reporting at the same time as the announcement?

~~~
striking
The SPJ code of ethics[1] states that journalists should (because the "highest
and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public"):

– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid
political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or
impartiality, or may damage credibility.

– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special
interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

– Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil
dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news
content.

– _Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their
organizations._

.

TechCrunch said in 2008 that they will break every embargo they agree to.[2]

Edit: they later (2011, 2012) backed down from that pledge. See
CobrastanJorji's comment below (thank you!)

.

The Society of American Business Editors and Writers argue that they are
useful to keep the standard of journalism high, but that "journalists are
ultimately responsible to the public."[3]

.

And just for fun, and to make matters more concrete, here's a Slate article in
which an example (an article published by the WaPo) is raised that calls the
embargo system into question.[4]

.

[1]: [http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp](http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)

[2]: [https://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-
embargo/](https://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/)

[3]: [https://sabew.org/2012/05/the-embargo-and-business-
journalis...](https://sabew.org/2012/05/the-embargo-and-business-journalists/)

[4]:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/11/breaking_news_not_transcribing_it.html)

I hope this can help answer your question.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
TechCrunch backed down from that pledge.

See [https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-
techcrun...](https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/05/going-too-far-the-techcrunch-
embargo-and-other-myths/) -> "Do we break embargoes? Sometimes. Do we break
embargoes even after agreeing to them? Sometimes (but very rarely). Do we
agree to embargoes and then respect them? Sometimes."

or [https://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/the-lyft-launch-that-
could...](https://techcrunch.com/2012/08/24/the-lyft-launch-that-coulda-been/)
-> "For the most part, though, all the TechCrunch writers are cool with
embargoes. I don’t know a single person here who doesn’t accept them and we
generally all play by the rules."

That second article is a good example of another problem with close-hold
embargoes. You might wonder "why not just wait until the embargo lifts, then
interview someone, then publish?" This article shows a reporter who decides
that they couldn't possibly be reduced to posting an article about something
another reporter posted about twelve hours previously.

~~~
striking
Thanks for mentioning that. I've edited my comment to refer to yours.

------
finid
FDA manipulates the media. That's one part.

The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its
umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen house.

So in the final analysis, those companies control the media. But it gets
better; sometimes, the parent company of a media company is in some sort of
partnership with the companies that control the FDA.

~~~
seehafer
> The other part: FDA is controlled by the companies that come under its
> umbrella. Think of the fox guarding the hen house.

People who work at companies that come under its umbrella wish that were true.
It's not. There is a revolving door and a lot of pressure back and forth but
the relationship is a lot more complicated than "pharma owns the FDA". There
are some fire-breathing regulators there (who think they're the only thing
preventing Big Pharma from selling us poison) who would slap your face if you
told them that.

~~~
Houshalter
They have some incredibly blatant corruption. Notably they protect the maker
of epipens by refusing to allow approve competing products:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-
dr...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-drugs-vs-
chairs/)

I'm sure there are some people at the FDA that believe they are still doing a
good job by preventing bad drugs. But even there they kill far more people
than they save by preventing life saving drugs from reaching terminally ill
patients, and vastly increasing the cost of producing drugs. They need to be
shut down.

~~~
popmystack
They're not refusing to approve competing products. The products refuse to go
through the process of being vetted by the FDA.

Get your story straight.

~~~
Houshalter
Yes, right, the FDA approval process is so ridiculous no one can even afford
to to try. That's much better.

~~~
popmystack
It's not ridiculous. In fact sometimes it's not even thorough enough.

If you can't understand the problems with vetting a device to be used by quite
a few people, then you're just being foolish.

------
DubiousPusher
This makes a pretty good argument for selecting news sources that aren't
"first to print". If a news source is willing to be behind the curve, it
indicates they're willing to report the news second hand and at least have the
possibility of pursuing some due diligence.

~~~
jerf
I agree. It's tempting to jump to the natural conclusions about how bad all
the people involved are, but this would lose a lot of its force if media gave
up its game of shaving minutes or seconds off first publication and developed
an ability to stick with a topic beyond one "news cycle", the very term of
which implies the existence of the problem. It could be easier to fix the
structural issues than the people issues.

Given how short a news cycle is becoming, perhaps this is not such a great
thing to ask for anymore.

I like watching "Angry Joe's" reviews for video games, which I note can come
out up to a month after the official release date. You may find his review
style offputting and I don't always agree with his conclusions, but it's
obvious that he actually puts the time in, whereas other journalists are, at
times, clearly reviewing games on the basis of playing through the first
couple of levels yesterday. I'd like to see this in more media.

------
pnathan
A few points. This is the aim, in part, of PR firms/departments: to shape and
control the narrative, the public _relationship_. That a behind-the-scenes
method is used to control the relationship should not be a surprise. That it
is being embraced by the _scientific_ authorities is surprising, frankly, and
disappointing to me.

That said, it would be _absolutely_ stunning to peek under the covers of major
journalism outfits and understand exactly how the sausage gets made and how
the flows of power route. Why does X get covered, Y doesn't? How much do
journalists take direction, in practice, from outside sources, and how much
investigative journalism do they really do? I don't know.

------
massysett
It's fair to blame the FDA, but this article absolves journalists of any
responsibility. No one is making them show up for these dog and pony shows.

Reminds me of when I read stories saying that a government official briefed
reporters in the condition that the official not be named. The press in that
situation willingly let itself become the government's propaganda arm.
Journalists need to look in the mirror here too.

------
niels_olson
Are media embargos a new thing, or is just this reporter's first time around
this block, and they're shocked to see the sausage get made. Quite frankly,
the science press has failed to earn the trust of scientists day in and day
out for as long as science press have taken that title.

~~~
Bartweiss
The point I took is that conditional embargoes are much worse than simple
ones.

This is a long-discussed issue with video games. If you say "no reviews for
our video game until release", that's just controlling timing. If you say "no
_negative_ reviews for our video game until release", you're manipulating the
narrative. You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally
sincere), but the gestalt is no longer natural.

> "Embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are dangerous"

It appears that the FDA is using conditional embargoes, and their specific
conditions are what shocked reporters.

~~~
stordoff
> You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally sincere), but
> the gestalt is no longer natural.

What I'm seeing fairly often is "Review embargo: nth Month; Streaming embargo:
n-7th Month". While there's an argument for it (reviewing a game takes time,
but a stream can be done cold), I suspect it (in some cases at least) is a way
to make sure good coverage comes out first - a streamer probably isn't going
to be digging completely into the flaws of a game, and they are actively
playing to an audience/trying to be entertaining, potentially making a
mediocre game look better. It's not quite the same as controlling review
content, but it definitely feels manipulative.

------
a3n
> The deal was this: NPR, along with a select group of media outlets, would
> get a briefing about an upcoming announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug
> Administration a day before anyone else. But in exchange for the scoop, NPR
> would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate
> whom NPR's reporter could and couldn't interview.

If I was an editor, that deal would have been a much more interesting story
than whatever they were explicitly trying to report.

------
Kinnard
This is especially troubling given the ruinous dietary advice they were bribed
into trumpeting, essentially poisoning a generation of Americans:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-
ind...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-
shifted-blame-to-fat.html)

They cannot be trusted.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's a mess out there. Everyone's bribing.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/13/some-context-for-
that-n...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/13/some-context-for-that-nyt-
sugar-article/)

------
maxerickson
Alternate title: How the media betray their readers.

------
brilee
The last two paragraphs of the article says it all - the FDA has embargo power
over the media, because the media can't cooperate to set their own embargo:

    
    
      Even a close-hold embargo wouldn't constrain a reporter without the reporter's consent; 
      the reporter can simply wait until the embargo expires and speak to outside sources, 
      albeit at the cost of filing the story a little bit later.
      Alas, Kiernan says, there isn't any movement within the journalism community to change things.

~~~
jnordwick
That's funny because the article mentions plenty of journalistic oppositions
of the the close-hold embargo from FOX News to Association of Health Care
Journalists.

------
known
"Media does not spread free opinion; it generates opinion." \--Oswald Spengler
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West)

~~~
losteverything
OK I looked at the link and now want more Spangler. What made you recall that
quote?

------
c3534l
Why on earth would NPR accept that deal? I thought the whole point of public
radio was that it was that by relying on donations it could maintain its
independence and objectivity. There is no longer any reason for them to exist.

~~~
tarequeh
It's hard for me to understand that why NPR would give up their journalistic
freedom to receive the briefing one day early. Is it that kind of a deal-
breaker to report an FDA announcement a day later than some others?

~~~
godshatter
In a perfect world, NPR would have done their article a day late, with the
proper quotes from those affected, and would have explained in a footnote that
this information would have been out a day earlier except that NPR could not
ethically agree with the FDAs terms which were blah, blah, blah.

~~~
aetherson
Then, for the next story, the FDA wouldn't even tell NPR about the possibility
of the briefing, so NPR would _start_ researching their story when other news
organizations _published_ their stories. The NPR would be release its story
several days after the people who had the scoop, and fairly likely, its
article would sink and vanish.

------
neil_s
Is it just me that sees a legitimate need for close-hold embargoes in
_specific_ cases?

In this case, the FDA was releasing new rules that would affect medical device
manufacturers and hence their stock prices. If reporters went around asking
industry people for comment about this, then they would have been spreading
material non-public information that would very likely affect stock prices in
those manufacturers.

The embargo doesn't ban reporters from interviewing outside sources
altogether. It only bans them from doing so until a certain time. If the
journalist wants to be responsible, they can start interviewing after that
time, and then publish a well-researched paper.

Lots of assumptions are being made about intentions, but perhaps this article
makes the issue seem more evil/conspiracy-like than it is.

~~~
briandear
So what if it affects stock prices? I am not sure why that concerns the FDA.

------
tomohawk
The 1st amendment reads:

    
    
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    

Here, the US Government is clearly abridging the freedom of the press. It
doesn't matter if it is 'consensual'. It is prohibited.

This is yet more evidence that this administration is one of the worst ever in
terms undermining the ability of the press to provide accountability and
transparency.

------
mcguire
" _Also in 2014 the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) used a
close-hold embargo when it announced to a dozen reporters that researchers had
discovered subtle signals of gravitational waves from the early universe. “You
could only talk to other scientists who had seen the papers already; we didn
't want them shared unduly,” says Christine Pulliam, the media relations
manager for CfA. Unfortunately, the list of approved scientists provided by
CfA listed only theoreticians, not experimentalists—and only an
experimentalist was likely to see the flaw that doomed the study. (The team
was seeing the signature of cosmic dust, not gravitational waves.) “I felt
like a fool, in retrospect,” says Lemonick, who, as one of a dozen or so
chosen journalists, covered the story for Time (at the time, he was not on the
staff of Scientific American)._"

This is a major problem with science coverage. Media is forced to run what is
effectively a press release. Stories that are then retracted (the story of
easily-generating pluripotent stem cells a few years ago didn't pass my
limited smell test and were then revealed to be faked) cause the public to be
rightfully distrustful of science coverage and science.

Not to mention the handling of regulatory bodies; has anyone seen any coverage
of e-cigarettes after the FDA's regulations change that didn't have sentences
to the effect of, "E-cigarettes are promoted as safer than cigarettes. But
_this_ shows the aren't completely safe."?

------
heisenbit
Embargoes are an effective tool to ensure an certain minimum depth of
reporting, control timing and prevent misunderstanding causing negative
publications. They can be used to implement some limited idea of fairness and
they can be used to exercise control.

Embargoes are a communications and marketing tool. Whether public institutions
should value story telling over letting the facts stand for themselves is
really the question. The culture today puts a lot value on stories...

------
aetherson
Someone -- I think here on HN -- described the catch 22 for journalists: They
need access in order to do their jobs. But they will get denied access as soon
as they use that access to tell a story that substantially upsets the people
they cover.

You basically get one chance in your career as a journalist to really do the
right thing, and then after that you can't do your day-to-day job.

------
tn13
Is there any studies to indicate FDA is useful to Americans in any way?
Despite the absolutely mindblowing sh*t-pile of regulations that this agency
creates every year there does not seem to be any major difference between
lifespans of Americans and neighboring Canada. Not to mention the EpiPen like
fiascos are a direct result of FDA's collusion from very people it swears to
protect us.

FDA's existence seem to put a significant cost on doctors, pharma companies,
patients and everyone related with no apparent benefit. Surely we can point
one or two occasions where FDA might have saved American health but have we
measured the times it actually harmed Americans by peddling falsehoods,
increasing cost of drugs and delaying innovation ?

Plenty of research seem to exist to point out that FDA might be doing more
harm to us than good.
[http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php](http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php)

~~~
vkou
Canada has an FDA equivalent, called Health Canada (The HPFB, to be precise.)

It has a very similar process for drug approval, including a mindblowing shit-
pile of regulations for what constitutes approval, what can and cannot be
sold, and what the government will pay for.

On, and the best part? It piggybacks off FDA approval, via mutual exchange of
information between the parties. If you got FDA approval for your drug, you
will have a much easier time selling it in Canada.

Don't tear down a fence, unless you understand why it was built. Medicine is a
shit-pile of complicated, and there's no shortage of people willing to peddle
snake oil - or, starting from the best intentions, grossly misunderstand the
efficacy of a treatment. There are always compromises that have to be made,
between ensuring timely, affordable access to drugs, and being sure that those
drugs actually behave as advertised.

Some of the tradeoffs currently made may not be optimal - however, to dismiss
them out of hand, without thoroughly understanding them is hubris.

------
rtkwe
One point I think in support of these types of embargoes is that news about an
FDA announcement can have huge financial and business impacts and seeking
responses would very likely leak that information to the businesses that will
be impacted by announcement X.

~~~
curious_fella1
Couldn't they just add a condition that anyone who is reached out to for
comment can't act on that information until the embargo has passed?

~~~
rtkwe
That'd be neigh impossible to enforce and a lot of people wouldn't agree to
those terms.

~~~
rdiddly
Is it not insider trading at that point, enforceable by the (admittedly
pathetic) SEC?

------
suprgeek
"Manipulating the media" \- what about the much more serious concern of the
revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA?

This door spins almost as fast as the one between the Big Banks and the SEC.

The current commissioner of the FDA used to be a paid consultant for the the
Pharma industry and that was the reason they backdoored him into the spot [1]
(after getting him in as some other position)

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/health/fda-nominee-
califfs...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/health/fda-nominee-califfs-ties-
to-drug-industry-raise-questions.html)

------
noobermin
One great idea is to just not give embargoes, just give everyone the same
information at the same time. It seems like an embargo is a _favor_ to the
media companies, feeding this frenzy of "get out first" journalism. Instead,
they should be all be "left in the cold" to quote the article.

------
djcjr
\--TL;DR-- Another government agency is more controlling with
(mis)information, and the integrity and usefulness of news media declines
further.

------
known
If you don't read a newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper,
you are misinformed.

------
arca_vorago
While thinking about the FDa, please keep in mind how pervasivly Monsanto has
inserted former employees into its ranks for their putposes (especially now in
light of the Bayer buyout move). Sure big pharma et al have as well, but it's
monsanto that pops up on my "6 degrees of kevin bacon" social graphs of them.

