On Opinion Page, a Lobby’s Hand Is Often Unseen - New York Times
I was quite surprised to glance down at today’s New York Times and realize that I recognized the name, Susan Finston, mentioned as the lead “bad guy” in a big pharma expose.
On Opinion Page, a Lobby’s Hand Is Often Unseen - New York Times:WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 - Susan Finston of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a conservative research group based in Texas, is just the sort of opinion maker coveted by the drug industry.In an opinion article in The Financial Times on Oct. 25, she called for patent protection in poor countries for drugs and biotechnology products. In an article last month in the European edition of The Wall Street Journal, she called for efforts to block developing nations from violating patents on AIDS medicines and other drugs.
Both articles identified her as a “research associate” at the institute. Neither mentioned that, as recently as August, Ms. Finston was registered as a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry’s trade group. Nor was there mention of her work this fall in creating the American Bioindustry Alliance, a group underwritten largely by drug companies.
The institute says Ms. Finston’s ties to industry should not have prevented her from writing about those issues. Nor is there a conflict, it says, in the work of Merrill Matthews Jr., who writes for major newspapers advocating policies promoted by the insurance industry even though he is a registered lobbyist for a separate group backed by it. “Lobbying is not a four-letter word,” said the institute’s president, Tom Giovanetti.
But organizations like the institute, which bills itself as an independent, nonprofit research group committed to a “smaller, less intrusive government,” are facing new and uncomfortable scrutiny
First, my position on the merits: I am no great fan of big pharma, or the current U.S. patent and copyright regimes, but it seems to me entirely reasonable that an increasingly global world should have a consistent scheme for protecting the rights created by the development of intellectual property.
Next, the personal angle: I used to know Susan Finston quite well — she was one of my good friends for several years in my twenties. Unfortunately, we had a falling out when she disinvited my wife Cheryl to her wedding on the basis of second-hand gossip and a huge misreading of Cheryl’s character. That left me in a position where it was impossible to continue the friendship. And, to be fair, it may be that I hadn’t pulled my weight either.
Despite this mixed past history, it galls me to see even a former friend given a cheap shot like this. When you read on in the article, you discover the following amazing explanations of how the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times were “suckered” into running her article.
While major newspapers and magazines usually insist that outside writers disclose conflicts of interest, editors do not routinely conduct background checks [!!], especially for authors affiliated with credible research groups.
Brian Groom, an editor at The Financial Times who handles opinion articles for the newspaper, based in London, said he did not recall being told of Ms. Finston’s ties to the drug and biotechnology industries before publishing the article.
The editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot, said in an interview that “we’re absolutely convinced” the paper was not told of Ms. Finston’s industry ties. The paper might still have run the article, he said, but with more information about her background.
This is ridiculous. The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal have never heard of Google? Even the most rudimentary search turns up some pretty big clues that Susan Finston has an industry background. And even the most credulous readers of the op-ed page assume that the authors of advocacy pieces have some sort of agenda. So what’s the story?
“FT, WSJ editors asleep at the switch.”
Related posts
