Larry Lambert, writing at Virtual Mirage, explains why Big Pharma is so upset at the prospect of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being appointed as the Secretary of Health & Human Services.
Why are there so many pharma ads on TV? A TV news president admitted to RFK Jr. that any host allowing him to speak negatively about Big Pharma on air would be FIRED because “this is where our advertisers are.”
Jaws dropped when former pharma insider @CalleyMeans told Tucker Carlson on his show, “The news ad spending from pharma is a public relations lobbying tactic, essentially to BUY OFF the news… The media plays referee because they’re funded by so on all levels.”
Only two countries allow pharmaceutical ads on TV: the United States and New Zealand. And those ads make a big chunk of money. RFK Jr. was told by a network executive that “during non-election years, during some months, up to 70% of his news division revenues are coming from pharma.”
When evidence about the dangers of smoking began to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s, news organizations hesitated to expose Big Tobacco because they depended on the industry for its ad revenue. The same conflict exists today with the pharmaceutical industry and TV news. This is why the mainstream media is in full-blown panic over RFK Jr.’s HHS appointment. They know that once he gets in, he is going to end pharma ads on TV, which will be a devastating blow to their wallets.
That makes sense when one thinks about how often we're bombarded with advertisements for the latest and greatest drugs and medical treatments. In my younger days I wasn't exposed to that, except for advertisements for over-the-counter nostrums to deal with coughs, colds and flu. It was a culture shock to arrive in the USA and find advertisements for rather more intimate medications to treat anything from ingrown toenails to terminal Stage 4 cancer in various organs.
So, if Mr. Kennedy can kill off pharmaceutical advertising, he can also kill off most of our annoying, overbearing, self-obsessed, incestuous television news and entertainment media? Sounds like a win all round to me!
Peter
I wonder what other industries/groups use the same strategy?
ReplyDeleteA monopoly, like a patent, comes from a legislature. When a legislature awards a monopoly, only one organization is permitted to offer a product or service, and competition is banned. The FCC picks who shall be permitted to operate TV stations, and their program contents. The FCC is the modern Alien and Sedition Acts, which blocks criticism of government. Ending pharma ads on TV will barely make a dent to free up the central control of information. Instead you need to open TV up to competition.
ReplyDeleteLong time reader, first time poster. Despite working in the pharma business for a few years, I can agree that the advertising, especially TV and radio, to the general public for prescription drugs should not be allowed, even on the simple grounds of keeping prices under control for the end users. Less advertising cost=lower product cost.
ReplyDeleteIt's the old bribe... That's exactly what it is. Nice network you have here. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it?
ReplyDeleteYou publish a bad-news piece on Pharma, there goes the Phizer ad's. Who couldn't have known!? The 12 million commercials for pills you never heard of to treat diseases you didn't know existed.. all followed up by "If you can't afford your medication, we can help.,.."
OF COURSE YOU'RE BEING PLAYED!!! How can you NOT see it>?
Roger that!
ReplyDeleteRead "sickening" by John Abramskn, MD, MSc to check out the pharma industry.
ReplyDeleteIt makes total sense because its boomers who watch the news, and the product they advirtise is always drugs because boomers aren't buying breakfast cereal with cartoon maskots.
ReplyDeleteI am not comfortable banning anyone in the USA from advertising their products. After all, everyone in the USA has a guarantee of free speech, especially from the federal and state governments.
ReplyDelete>speak negatively about Big Pharma on air would be FIRED because “this is where our advertisers are.”
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that apply to every big advertiser? Fox hosts don't slam the My Pillow guy or skillet manufacturers, and I don't mock customers walking into my retail store.
Banning drug advertising (a.k.a. free speech) means that only insider professionals would know what options I have for treatment. Advertising might not be the best way for me to get my medical info, but I don't have a lot of other options.
If you rely on ads for your medical decisions, you have a lot more to worry about than free speech issues. What I find troublesome is that these pharma ads state that their drug will not interfere with the mental health drugs you are currently taking! That speaks volumes about the state of our nation.
DeleteYou have the Internet, a repository of information unmatched by any library.
DeleteBefore we canonize Mr. Kennedy, let's wait 6-mo to a year to see what is accomplished, not just talked about.
ReplyDelete