Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Advertising Affecting Editorial?

David Baker has done research showing how the Times Union hasn't covered any of the lawsuits against a leading health care corporatation who is also a regular advertiser in the paper. It would appear that their advertising dollars are protecting them from any negative coverage. It is disturbing to read, but sadly not surprising. All The News That Our Advertisers Allow Us To Print.

Read about it yourself.

And as he points out, the TU has covered other cases against other health care providers. From his site:

"Now perhaps the management of the paper thinks that dangerous medical errors and negligence are not a matter of public interest. Given the alarming number of people reportedly killed and injured each year in health care facilities, most people would probably not agree. And the Times Union’s own editors clearly didn’t think so back in 2002 when they ran all those stories about the tragic death of one of their own reporters. You probably remember the case.

The writer, Mike Hurewitz, died after donating a part of his liver to an ailing brother. The state Health Department later fined Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City a total of $66,000 for a series of failures in its care of the 57-year-old patient. Again using the Times Union’s own data base, a search found that in the following three months, the newspaper ran at least 30 stories about the Hurewitz case. The paper also ran four editorials, the first of which was published just three days after Hurewitz died, and well before the Health Department had found any failure in the care provide by the hospital. Still not satisfied, during the next 12 months the paper ran another 20 stories that were about or made a significant reference to the Hurewitz case."

The catch is that Mr. Hurewitz was not being cared for by the local health care providers that spend all the advertising money.

I encourage you to read all of the information on Mr. Baker's site.