But does the
world of PR support or undermine this? And how complicit is the media?
Splashed
across the front page of the Express last Thursday was: “Coffee Fights
Alzheimer’s”. The story was simple –
apparently drinking three to five cups a day (described as moderate amounts) may
cut your risk of what’s quickly becoming the most talked about disease in the
media.
On the front
page there was no mention of who funded the study or where the results had been
published. But there was a comment from Dr Iva Holmerova, vice chairman of
Alzheimer Europe – an authoritative sounding voice.
Buried on
page 4, I found the real source - the Institute for Scientific Information on
Coffee; a non-profit organisation dedicated to the disclosure of scientific
information about coffee and health and funded by seven major coffee companies
including Nestle and Lavazza.
Interestingly,
in the Express’ online story, the Institute for Scientific
Information on Coffee is mentioned in the second paragraph. If this version of
the copy was in the paper, the Institute would have made the front page no
problem. I wonder how that happened?
So what?
Despite the
temptation, this isn’t to say the findings aren’t legitimate – the Institute’s
website says that it supports researchers to disclose results regardless of
outcomes and there is credible, published research on the site. But it’s quite
difficult to find lay information about the studies that aren’t so favourable
of coffee and that’s certainly not reflected in the PR generated coverage.
In fact a
couple of weeks ago, the same Institute of Scientific Information on Coffee put
out a story saying that drinking coffee “slashes” your risk of diabetes to mark
World Diabetes Day.
This wasn’t
based on a new study, but a review of previous research papers. The press
picked it up – it was covered by the Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post among others. This was an example of
a classic PR tactic - taking advantage of a calendar news hook.
Legitimate story or savvy PR?
The question is, are these legitimate stories, the product of savvy PR or the result of
resource strangled journalism?
I think the
answer is a mix of all three…
I’m not
opposed to the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, or the fact that
it can earn media coverage with strong stories based on proper research.
However, I do believe the media has a responsibility to point out the clear
conflict of interest of research showing the health benefits of drinking coffee
funded by the Europe’s largest coffee companies.
The fact that
the research concludes that ‘further research is required’ – a statement backed
up by the Alzheimer’s Society - suggests this story is being given more
significance than it deserves. I certainly don’t assume there is inconclusive
evidence or the need for further research from the headline. Four paragraphs on page 23 might have been a
more suitable location.
Are we all in it together?
But my
overriding sense with stories like this is that the comms and PR industry are
sometimes complicit in buying in to the values of the media without really committing
to them. I’m certain I’ve benefited from this in my job.
I’m sure the
Express would say the story is accurate and balanced – it clearly states who
funded the study and it offers a counter comment from the Alzheimer’s Society.
But with the Express not making a judgment on the credibility of the research
by placing it on the front page, does this really count as balanced, accurate
reporting?
I’m sure the
coffee companies would say there is no conflict here – the Institute is
non-profit and committed to full disclosure. But then, why are Europe’s biggest
coffee companies funding an organisation like this and why is it taking
advantage of PR opportunities like World Diabetes Day? You have to admit this
Institute is well placed to promote the health benefits of coffee.
In this
sense, the story is meeting the objectives of both organisastions. For the
Institute - it has successfully linked buying more of their its funder's products
to protection against a deadly disease. And for the media, well they got an
exclusive front page splash served up to them on a plate.
Plenty of food
for thought (or maybe coffee is scientifically better)?
