This article is from the WebMD Commentary Archive

Jan. 31, 2004 -- All news organizations (at least legitimate ones) profess to have a high wall of separation between editorial content and advertising. In reality, some companies do better than others at strictly and consistently enforcing the separation.

WebMD's official policy is that "News content created by WebMD is free from influence by sponsors …" and that "WebMD keeps its news staff separate and distinct from staff dedicated to sponsors …" During my time here, I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. The writers and editors have no contact with the advertising department and, based on my conversations with them, seem generally oblivious to who is or isn't a WebMD sponsor. That's as it should be.

Yet from time to time, WebMD gets emails from users who cite instances of what they believe to be advertiser influence on news content. For example, one reader recently asked whether a WebMD article, "Warning Added to ADHD Drug StratteraWarning Added to ADHD Drug Strattera," should have disclosed that the drug's manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Company, is a WebMD sponsor. Perceiving the article to be skewed to promote Lilly's interests, he wrote, "I wonder if this favorable treatment would have been offered to another drug manufacturer who doesn't pay for a sponsorship on your web site."

In fact, WebMD requires that its journalists disclose when the subject of a news article is a major sponsor -- something that isn't done at most other news organizations. But sponsorships are typically the last things on the minds of WebMD writers and editors, who are so busy trying to gather facts and make deadlines that they don't have time to check -- or even think about checking -- whether someone in their article happens to be an advertiser. Consequently, the disclosures are sometimes accidentally omitted.

That's what happened with the Strattera article. It didn't occur to the physician who authored it that he was writing about a major sponsor, and he therefore didn't think to include a disclosure. That omission, rather than being an indicator of advertiser influence, is evidence of just the opposite. It's the predictable result of insulating the editorial department from advertising.

For me, the episode raises questions about the necessity and even the wisdom of the disclosure policy. If you assume -- as most WebMD users rightly do -- that WebMD news articles are objective and free of advertiser influence, then why does it matter that a drug company mentioned in a story happens to be a sponsor? Does that fact lessen the credibility of the article, and does disclosing it somehow give the news more credibility? The answer to both, it seems to me, is no.

What's more, this well-intended policy can backfire. The user who wrote about the Strattera article noted that other WebMD articles -- which he believed to be "written more objectively"-- included mention of corporate sponsorships. When disclosures appear in some articles but not others (because of an oversight or because the sponsor isn't a "major" advertiser), it can raise questions and fuel skepticism about editorial standards.

Disclosures will not stop some from accusing WebMD of being under the influence of sponsors. There will always be readers who perceive biases that don't exist. All WebMD can do is to clearly state its policy of separating news and advertising -- and continue to live up to its own high standards.

If you have comments about this or other articles, please contact WebMD's Public Editor.WebMD's Public Editor.

Robert Davis, PhD, is the reader's representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.