Let's Picko on Sicko

by Sheldon Rampton — July 4, 2007 - 10:20pm
Share/Save Share this

A Google advertising sales rep has apologized after using her company blog to urge healthcare companies to take out Google ads attacking Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko." Moore "attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst," wrote Lauren Turner. "Moore's film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare's interest in patient well-being and care." In response, she suggested, Google ads can help companies "better manage their reputations through 'Get the Facts' or issue management campaigns. ... We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network." After coming under heavy criticism from non-Google bloggers, Turner beat a hasty retreat, writing that her statement was just "my personal opinion." According to a report in Forbes, however, "The incident does more than call attention to Google's ever-cozier relationships with corporate advertisers as it deepens its role as an online advertising agency: It also highlights Google's unorthodox use of bloggers to communicate with the public. Google has long used blogs as a casual form of public relations, both on its official sites and on the personal sites of its employees, sometimes blurring the line between the two."

Main Source: 
Forbes, July 2, 2007

Comments

Dixie's Dieting Demagogue is a DUNCE!!!!!

Submitted by Pani113 on July 15, 2007 - 10:43am.

Now they are resorting to personal attacks! Mike - lets put weight on kids report cards- Huckabee is claiming Moore's size is responsible for the US health care crisis. I am pleased to see Moore's staff expose his real agenda. Seems the homophobic, healthier-than-thou huckster is having trouble raising campaign cash. So his weight loss is the only thing he can exploit for national attention. I am glad they were aware of the scapegoating by this slimmed down simpleton. Not that prevention is a bad thing. But EVERYONE can benefit by more exercise and natural eating, not just fat people. Finger pointing is unacceptable. How does he know what Moore's medical expenses are?????? Both health care and obesity are complex issue that will take more than a low calorie Cracker to "solve."

http://tinyurl.com/2cvkwp

Does this have a familiar ring?

Submitted by Mutternich on July 15, 2007 - 12:09pm.

"Just because he stopped eating Twinkies by the bushel doesn't make that an outline for a national health care plan."

Or, not eating Twinkies by the bushel is a sign of personal virtue...

Tables turned, even if the target is different.

Remind me to read this article soon -- just sticking it up here for right now:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56440/

One Import From China I'd Like to See

Submitted by Pani113 on July 5, 2007 - 1:04pm.

And they think Michael Moore is playing hardball? Former head of the Chinese FDA Zheng Xiaoyo was sentenced to death for accepting bribes to expedite approval of new drugs (link). Sigh!!!! If only we could implement that here! When I think of all the women bullied into taking risky weight loss drugs, I think the U.S. FDA officials should be forced to take double douses of fen-phen. And I'd slip them Alli with their last meal too!!!!!!

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=839272007

Patient Care is an Afterthought

Submitted by Pani113 on July 5, 2007 - 12:26pm.

"Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care."

I am not really a fan of Moore, but if EVER there was a more ridiculous quote anytime, anywere I can't think of one. Our health care system IS money and market driven and patient well-being and care is an afterthought. Pick apart any major study done by Pharma. The outcome is determined BEFORE the study is ever done, and the data is skewed in a way that assures Pharma maximum profit. Sheesh!!!!! I know she is a saleperson, but she needs to wake up and quit buying her own B.S.!!!!!!

p.s. Wait. Maybe there IS a more ridiculous quote that exists. Didn't Dubya say we were in Iraq to promote democracy?????????

'Isolated'?

Submitted by Mutternich on July 5, 2007 - 8:20am.

"Moore 'attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst,' wrote Lauren Turner.

Could that possibly be because of the health care and PR industries' efforts to keep the victims isolated, and the public from connecting the dots?

Here's an example of how these issues get framed, inadvertently or otherwise:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2007/07/03/2003367959

How well does 'SiCKO' stand up to the facts?

The movie presents a series of heart-rending anecdotes meant to illustrate systemic failures and foul-ups under the US' insurance industry - even if many of the major pieces of evidence have already been widely reported elsewhere

By Kevin Lamb

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, DAYTON, OHIO
Tuesday, Jul 03, 2007, Page 16

The wording of the headline pictures SiCKO on one side opposed by "the facts" on the other. A fairer wording, IMO, might be something like, "How well does SiCKO represent the facts?"

I came across that headline in the entertainment section of Google News.

Either wording would still

Submitted by Josh821 on July 11, 2007 - 11:49am.

Either wording would still be placing the facts versus SiCKO which is fair. Why shouldn't we look for facts and compare them to SiCKO? If it's accurate then there's no problem. I'm sure they are accurate for the most part as well but I'm also sure that they're used only in ways that completely support what he's trying to prove, which is natural.

I think when they say that those cases are isolated they mean there are very few of them. If they were the norm at all I'm sure they'd be all over the news. People are greedy but I don't think that all the people that were wronged by their insurers could be bought out especially when the issue is getting money from insurers to pay for their medical needs. At that point whether they're bought out or helped they're getting the money they need to do what they need to do.

I respect Michael Moore for bringing the issue to the forefront but I don't really agree with his assessments. Our health care is not much more or less effective than any other country we just spend much more on it. Universal health care will just change where the money comes from to cover the overhead costs but won't change what the costs are.

I make music at www.penanonymous.com
I offend people at www.chipmonkownsyou.com

All over the news?

Submitted by Mutternich on July 12, 2007 - 10:08am.

I think when they say that those cases are isolated they mean there are very few of them. If they were the norm at all I'm sure they'd be all over the
news.

Of course that's what they mean.

But "all over the news"? Perhaps you've heard the saying, "News is what powerful people want to suppress; everything else is advertising." The mainstream media are in the advertising business, not the news business. They're in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers, including the insurance, HMO and pharma industries, and conveying the messages those advertisers want those audiences to hear, both during and between the commercial breaks.

If by "the norm" you mean more claims being denied than paid, then, yes, that would have been harder for the mainstream media to ignore.

But when "the norm" means skimpy and shrinking coverage and ever-increasing premiums, deductibles and co-pays, plus an SOP of stiffing occasional claims for expensive lifesaving surgery for no good reason, then it's harder for the victims to make themselves heard, and it's easy to blow off the victims as "isolated." At least until someone like Michael Moore comes along.

Universal health care will just change where the money comes from to cover the overhead costs but won't change what the costs are.

Not so. The whole point is to redefine that word "overhead." The for-profit system makes it the corporations' fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. Patients are considered overhead, and they get squeezed to maximize profits. HMOs put doctors on notice that the "customer" is the HMO, not the patient.

A truly humane system would regard shareholder profit -- not to mention multimillion-dollar CEO salaries and golden parachutes -- and advertising, PR and lobbying budgets -- as unconscionable overhead. It would reinstate the patient as "the customer" and would serve the patient a lot better. And many other countries' systems do just that.