Most online publishers use some sort of disguised advertisements on their websites. Today as a consumer it is near to impossible to separate the truth from the fake news. So, who can consumers trust to be candor? Even industry professionals like doctors are beginning to be held accountable for taking money from companies to endorse their products, despite their own opinions.
In the Elle article “Is Skyla the birth control of the future?”, Matthews does not even attempt to disguise the sponsorship of Skyla, as it is placed right in the article title. But today our society does not pay enough attention to notice, and the term ‘sell out’, is foreign terminology for youth who are used to their favourite celebrities posting sponsored content on web 2.0. In the article, it is harder to decipher whom this sponsorship is directly benefitting, and this causes one to question if maybe Skyla really is as phenomenal as claimed. Further investigation reveals that two doctors are in fact benefitting economically from the spread and consumption of this news. Including Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc who manufactures the IUD, who owns and controls the coverage of this product. This piece of content is leading woman to make uneducated opinions on something as important as their birth control, and this is important because it is putting their health and safety at risk.
In the past couple of years, there has been an increase in the concentration of ownership.” Twenty years ago, half of all media revenues were generated by the 46 largest media corporations already a fairly concentrated industry. Today the 10 largest media-owning companies produce half of all media revenues (Gilens and Hertzman, 2000). Critics argue that one of the reasons this is not called into question is because the main sources of news and information are controlled by the same conglomerates. This type of control of media is seen in the Elle article. The product the journalist raves about is a product manufactured by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical Company. This company is considered one of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies in 2018, with a revenue of 29.1 billion dollars (Vara, 2018). They have a lot of power and control over the way they market their products. The article in Elle is an advertisement disguised as an informative article, but the ownership is evident, Mathews bias is clearly shown. Ownership with health-related products like IUDs are extremely important because consumers need to get accurate health information. Advertisers are well aware that they benefit from some ambiguity in the consumer’s mind about whether or not it’s paid advertising, because they know that consumers habituate themselves to ignore advertising online. Sponsored articles are becoming an important part of financially supporting objective journalism, with the blocking of more traditional banner ads becoming mainstream (Heilpern, 2016). But is this fair to society, where most people are then making naïve product decisions.
In most deceptive articles like this one, more than one person is profiting from the news article. Bayer healthcare Pharmaceutical is one of the main profiteers because it is their product that is being endorsed and therefore, through the increase in sales that this advertisement will give them they increase their revenue. But there are also two doctors who speak on behalf of the product giving it their “professional” stamp of approval, but further investigation leads one to the realization that these doctors are in fact being paid to endorse Skyla. Dr. Zampione comments on the benefits of how this IUD is manufactured stating that it is the perfect option for those women who have not given birth (Matthews, 2014). It is not explicitly stated but Dr. Zampione was one of the main doctors involved in creating Skyla, making him a bias source, as he will obviously promote his product positively. Bayer also paid him to speak for this article. Dr. Lauren F Streicher is also quoted in the article, discussing how Skyla is a great option for all women. But we do not actually know her true opinion on the product. She is a certified doctor, but she also is a public figure for all things medicine. Similar to Doctor Phil she speaks on different media platforms endorsing many products. In 2014, Streicher was paid $160,814 on top of her salary by 16 different companies to speak highly about their products, Bayer is one of the top contributors (Tiger et al. 2016). She is also a gynaecologist, so she is prescribing sponsored products to her clients, instead of giving them products that fit their bodies. Moynihan writes that “doctors and drug companies have become entangled in a web of interactions as controversial as they are ubiquitous.” (Moynihan, 2003). In his study, he finds that several countries show that 80-95% of doctors regularly see drug company representatives despite evidence that their information is overly positive and prescribing habits are less appropriate as a result. Many doctors receive multiple gifts from drug companies every year, and most doctors deny their influence despite considerable evidence to the contrary (Moynihan, 2003). A culture of industry gift-giving creates entitlements and obligations for doctors that conflict with their primary obligation to patients.
We are reminded that “The point of journalism was to persuade as well as inform, and the press tended to be highly partisan.” (McChesney, 2003). But today society asks for journalism that is neutral and not bias. But as we know, that is not what we receive. In the article, it is clear that there is a big bias and the article is trying to convince their audience to purchase this specific product. This type of reception is ethically alarming. Bayer Healthcare knows they need their products marketed to young females, so not only do they put it in a magazine that young women read, but they also have these doctor’s emphasis how young girls need to use this specific product. Young girls are already impressionable, and they do not need these big pharmaceutical companies tricking them into purchasing their products. Teens are nervous to talk to their own doctors and parents about their introduction to sexual activity, as it is an embarrassing unsure transition for most (Herold and Goodwin, 1979). So, they seek information from anywhere else, and this usually means turning to magazines and their peers. But if they cannot trust these journalists to be neutral and unbiased, who do they have to turn to in such a transformative time in their lives?
After looking deeper into this article, it is evident that there are many individuals and institutions that are benefiting from this disguised advertisement. Journalisms institutionalized conversation about ethics largely evades the most important issues regarding the public interest and the civic responsibilities of the press. Changes in the ownership and organization of the news media make these issues especially important (Iggers, 2018). Our society needs to be made aware of the way journalism has changed to benefit those in power with their own agendas. Otherwise, we will continue to live in a world where all information is bias, and we do not know what candor is.
2019-2-11-1549848512