Readers of the Sunday New York Times Magazine were treated on April 1 to an extensive advertising supplement on allergies and asthma. The supplement ran from page 30 to page 42, with regular Times Magazine page numbering. The ostensible news copy was prepared by an outside agency; the section carried the disclaimer, in small type, that it was not based on reporting or editing by the Times.
Advertising supplements are not new. But there should be decent limits,especially at quality papers like the Times. This supplement was designed for drug company advertising of allergy and asthma products. It included an ad for Aventis Pharmaceuticals' Allegra, one for GlaxoWellcome's Flonaze, and a four-page spread by Pfizer. Dozens of other products were plugged repeatedly in the advertorial's pseudo-news copy.
Despite the section's title, "From Cause to Cure," there was nothing about cause.The several "news" articles did not address why asthma and allergies have reached epidemic proportions. Air pollution was mentioned once in passing; householdchemicals, not at all. But according to the American Lung Association, pollutionof various kinds is much of the story. Nor did the supplement address the classand race gradient of asthma, which has become a growing affliction for black andother inner-city children. One short article gingerly plugged a pilot program ofasthma and allergy consultants who serve "society's less fortunate."
Had the Times editors--rather than the advertising department--controlled this space, the story would have been entirely different. Public health and prevention, not just expensive pharmaceuticals and treatment after the fact, would have been a major part of the reporting. Drug companies saturate the media with their ads. It's hard to believe that the Times really needs pseudo-news sections like this one to attract such advertising.
Yes, the sophisticated reader will know that all this material is really justone big ad. But it's no accident that the advertisers try to disguise their salespitches as something as close to news copy as the Times will allow. And in this case, instead of drawing a bright line between news and paid propaganda, the Times works with them to abet that impulse. It kind of takes your breath away.
