April 25, 2005
The Framing of Prescription Drug Reimportation
Health care issues have been among the most discussed in modern America. In particular, the high cost of prescription drugs for Americans has been in the limelight. The cost of prescription drugs in the United States has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that drug spending grew at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of 14.5 percent from 1997 to 2002, reaching $162 billion in 2002. That represented 10.5 percent of the nation's total health spending, compared with 5.8 percent a decade earlier (Schuler, Kate. "Weighing Promise and Perils of Drug Importation." CQ Weekly. 24 July 2004: 1788). One of the suggestions for lowering drug costs is to reimport them from Canada, where the same drugs are often sold for 60% less than they are in the United States. The way in which this reimportation issue has been framed has been very interesting with respect to the players involved in the fight and the politics behind certain decisions.
There has been so much media coverage on the high price of drugs that citizens have been expecting action for quite a while. In this way, the framing of the reimportation issue has been thematic. Media agencies first describe the problem in the bigger picture by describing "America's health care crisis" and the rising cost of treatment. Then they narrow down to the more pressing issue of prescription drug costs. It is interesting to note that before they talk about the possible solutions for the problem, they focus on the impact of high prices on the American public. More specifically, they portray the effects of these prices on the most vulnerable group of people in this scenario: senior citizens. The media frames the issue in the context of human interest by always starting with a specific instance of a senior citizen having to go to extreme measures to get affordable prescription medications. This is more common with televised media as opposed to print or radio media because the image of an elderly person sorting through their handful of daily pills is quite powerful and attracts the viewer to the story. Following this lead-in come the hard facts about reimportation, including economic impacts, drug company responses, and political action.
The information in this frame varies depending on the news source. The AARP, the senior citizen's group, frames the story as an ongoing battle against the pharmaceutical industry that keeps drug prices unnecessarily high. Because they have such an important stake in the issue, the AARP reports from their side of the issue while giving little credence to the other side. They tell stories of senior taking buses to Canada to purchase cheaper drugs, and describe the desperate measures seniors take to keep drug costs manageable. They evoke emotions of sympathy from the media audience in hopes of gaining public support.
The pharmaceutical industry frames reimportation as an unsafe practice that could endanger the lives of thousands of Americans. They cannot certify that drugs coming from other countries, even when bearing the company's label and safety seal, are safe. When issuing reports on the reimportation issue, the pharmaceutical industry frames the problem in terms of health and safety risks to the public; it is based on fear. They have to frame reimportation thematically as a health risk to draw attention away from the fact that they do not favor alternate means for citizens to get cheaper prescription drugs. Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell added to the fear framework by elaborating on hypothetical situations such as drug counterfeiting, contaminated medication and the formation of black markets. To justify high prices of medication, drug companies argue that allowing importation will lower profits, directly resulting in less money being devoted to research and development, thereby limiting scientific progress.
The thematic framing by the drug companies draws attention away from individual episodes that would put the industry in a negative light. Since 2003, five companies have begun to limit shipment of drugs to Canadian pharmacies known to reimport drugs to the United States. Because this issue is not framed episodically, these individual events do not receive as much attention as the overall issue of high drug prices. For example, a vice president at Pfizer broke rank in late 2004 by announcing at a Capitol Hill news conference that imported drugs are safe and that the practice of importing them should be legal (Pear, Robert. "Insider Challenges Drug Industry on Imports." The New York Times 24 Sept. 2004). The impact of this internal company dissention was not very strong because of the thematic framing of the issue. Because they lured the public into focusing on the safety of imported drugs, they were able to draw attention away from other events related to the issue, including cutting off drug supplies to Canada. This framework makes the pharmaceutical industry seem responsible and concerned about the safety of consumers, covering the blatant underlying profit motive.
The role of the government in the reimportation issue is very difficult. Theoretically, reimportation is banned at the federal level. In October 2000, a law was enacted that made drug importation legal only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certified that the drugs being imported were safe and would reduce costs for consumers; this certification could not be made. Because of federal-level stalemate, states took it upon themselves to establish their own programs. Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington, along with a few other states, established their own programs independent of the federal government. The unveiling of these reimportation programs were framed more episodically, because they were unexpected and were occurring at the state level, which was different from all other past actions that had occurred nationally. There wasn't a chance to frame the events thematically. Now that several states have already taken the action, future innovations or actions at the state level may be viewed under a thematic framework, as opposed to episodically. When Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich created the I-SaveRx program in October 2004, the media framed it episodically, but chose to focus on the fact that the state was outright defying federal law, rather than to focus on the actual issue of reimportation. Blagojevich created this program without approval from his own state legislature, creating additional questions regarding the power of the governor in such situations. Shortly after the announcement, the media then spun the issue into a "hot election topic." All of a sudden, the presidential candidates were forced into making statements on their views of reimportation because the media decided to bring the issue to the nation's attention just weeks before the election.
It is amazing how one issue can be framed in so many ways depending on who is telling the story. One way of looking at it can seem concretely logical, until you read the same information framed in a completely different manner; then you find yourself questioning the validity of the facts you just read.
Posted by swashaba at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)
April 18, 2005
X-Media-Lab Continued
X-Media-Lab is a unique operation based out of Australia that is a combination of a think tank and a laboratory for people in all media industries. In particular, it allows independent filmmakers, journalists, and programmers to access a wide range of technological resources as a means of creating and distributing their work. Mentors are assembled from all over the world, so the advice and aid given can help a project be successful not just in Australia, but worldwide as well. This lab has proven particularly helpful for independent journalists looking to create their own reports in an effort to sell them to various news stations.
They hold an annual Professional Day Conference which assembles international media experts to discuss important issues in creating, producing, and distributing new media content. The conference also teaches people about business and market strategies that are playing a more important role than ever in the success of new media platforms.
Though this particular lab is based in Australia, it could serve as a model for similar operations worldwide. They stress the importance of combining new media technologies to create the best product possible for the widest audience. I think the most important aspect of X-Media-Lab is that they strive to teach people about how to market their work in today's world. In an era where there are so many different sources of news and information, it is key to know how to get your work noticed. X-Media-Lab does a great job of providing knowledge and advice on not only how to create a piece of media, but how to get it noticed as well. An operation like this would thrive in the United States, and I would expect this model to reach the states in the coming years.
Posted by swashaba at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)
April 15, 2005
Experimental Media Platform
I found an Australia-based operation called X-Media-Lab that calls itself a "ground-breaking thinktank, concept laboratory, and production workshop for "new media" people in film, interactive media, games, entertainment, advertising, arts, media, music, communications and information, and information technology." I will write more about it this weekend, but here is the link as a preview.
http://www.xmedialab.com.au/xml1/xmedialab.asp
Posted by swashaba at 1:35 AM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
NBC-10 Philadelphia
Philadelphia's NBC-10 (WCAU) has a long history of delivering high-quality news to the residents of southeast Pennsylvania. The affiliate WCAU was bought by NBC in 1995 as part of an affiliate swap with CBS. Originally, it joined the CBS network in 1948 (after being previously owned by the Philadelphia Bulletin newspaper) and was important in establishing not only local, but national television. At the start, WCAU had impressive studios capable of producing live shows that CBS could, in turn, air nationally.
For a local station, WCAU has been instrumental in establishing many of the cornerstones of television news. It was the first station in the country to have a local 11pm news broadcast and the first to have a 4-person evening news team (2 anchors, weatherman, and sportscaster). John Facenda, one of the most well-known TV personalities in the Philadelphia area, had to personally pitch and implement the idea of an 11pm newscast. To strengthen his pitch, he even found sponsors for the show. On September 8, 1948, the first late-night newscast went on the air from WCAU studios. Though it started off as a one-man show, the late news expanded to a four-person team in 1950; a fun fact is that one of the original members of the team was a young Ed McMahon, the future Tonight Show sidekick.
Originally the news teams stuck to strictly news and facts, but as the 1960s approached, the station decided to add more of an editorial component to the mix. A journalist was hired to give commentary on current social and political issues. In the 1970s, the concepts of "action news" and "eyewitness news" were introduced at both the local and national levels, but WCAU was slow to adapt from its more traditional journalistic style and lost much of the young audience. Its attempts to reclaim the top spot in the local Philadelphia market by putting "fresh faces" on screen were not greeted kindly by the viewership; it looked as if the station was pushing out the tenured staff for a bunch of youthful unknowns. Eventually, the format change was complete and WCAU was able to return to the top spot in the local television news market.
Currently, the 11pm news ranks a very close second in the ratings to the local ABC affiliate, WPVI. Their newsrooms have a somewhat adversarial relationship, including an accusation by WPVI that NBC-10 was stealing story ideas from their promos. WCAU has also been accused of hiring a "tabloid guy" to raise news ratings when in reality they hired an anchor who'd worked for entertainment shows for less than a year; paired with some other news choices they've made, they're being framed as the local news that's "leading the charge toward gimmicks and hype." Critics say that NBC-10 news is a hybrid of entertainment and information instead of hard facts. This may be a byproduct of the fact that parent company NBC, in general, aims for a younger demographic.
The NBC-10 news team has 9 news anchors, 5 weather people, 3 sportscasters, and 18 reporters. In terms of ratings, WCAU is a close second in each time slot for news broadcasts behind WPVI (ABC affiliate). During some sweeps periods, WCAU's ratings beat those of their chief rival for the 11pm news slot. For the 11pm news, WCAU averages a rating of 12, meaning that roughly 12% of households with televisions are tuned in to that program; in the Philadelphia market this is the equivalent of about 320,000 homes. A full chart of local market ratings is available here (as of 2001).
In the latest news, as of August 2004, NBC-10 and The Philadelphia Inquirer are now in partnership. The station promises that the collaboration will allow better coverage of big stories affecting the area. As part of the deal, NBC-10 will give a preview of the Inquirer's headlines during the previous night's broadcast. There will also be special collaborations on other NBC-10 local programming. The impact on viewership/readership and ratings will not be fully known for a few more months.
The station's website provides a "video vault" that allows people to view important broadcasts from throughout the station's history. Slideshows and video clips allow the average viewer to see a pictorial history of the station. This is a really nice feature because you can see for yourself how the practice of television news has changed over time, from nicer sets to more anchors and topic experts.
Overall, I think WCAU NBC-10 is a great operation and I look forward to learning more about it during the coming semester.
Posted by swashaba at 1:43 AM | Comments (1)
February 20, 2005
CNN Headline News Changing Format
As I was skimming the news headlines for the day, I noticed that CNN Headline News is changing its primetime format and overall visual appearance. Here is the story if you haven't heard about it yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-TV-CNN-Headline-News.html?
I found both changes to be interesting for different reasons. In class, we talked about the fact that screens on news channels are becoming so cluttered with tickers and graphics and charts (we referred to the Bloomberg News Channel as the extreme case). I don't know if the change was due to internal research or viewer complaints, but I believe this will be a definite improvement.
As for changing the primetime format, it's purely a matter of ratings. Executives noticed that primetime viewership dropped dramatically when directly battling more traditional nighttime news shows. I wonder how long it will take for this change to impact their ratings. Viewers may feel more familiar with their current programs, thus making them reluctant to adapt to the new shows on Headline News. One of the new shows, "Showbiz Tonight," will be devoted to entertainment news and will run in direct competition to established entertainment shows such as Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight. In my mind, this is proof that CNN is grubbing for higher ratings. Seriously, do we really need another show telling us about the daily happenings of Britney Spears? Personally, I think CNN should stick to real news.
When I read about the change in format, I immediately paralleled it to the changes that have occurred at the Weather Channel during the past year. Also facing declining ratings (really, how exciting can continuous weather forecasts actually be?), the channel decided to add primetime specials and regular shows to the lineup. This helped bring ratings back up, and I'm sure CNN is hoping for a similar result with the changes being implemented at Headline News. I guess we'll see if it works!
Posted by swashaba at 9:02 PM | Comments (0)
February 6, 2005
The Internet: So Quick and Easy
I have discovered that over the past few years, my sources of news have changes drastically. During my high school years, the majority of my news information came from the nightly news on network television (mostly via Tom Brokaw because my mother had an unhealthy obsession with all things NBC). The television would be on in the background during dinner, so I'd hear about the day's events courtesy of Mr. Brokaw; otherwise, while doing my homework at night, I'd usually catch a few minutes of CNN Headline News to hear about the major events of the day. Home delivery of both The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune added to my information resource bank, but I did not read them as often as I could have, or should have.
Coming to college, I found I had little time to watch television or read newspapers in print. Internet news sources became my primary means of getting information. This was greatly aided by the luxury of a high-speed internet connection (a modern wonder that I lacked at home). Between classes and before meals, I'd skim CNN.com for national news and I'd peruse chicagotribune.com for events happening back home. I found this the best way to keep abreast of the main issues in the media. Even when I return home during breaks, I now rely much more heavily on internet media sources (now that my parents have entered the modern age of cable modems). The internet makes it easier to pick the specific news I want to know more about. For example, one of my strong interests is health care policy and pharmaceutical news. By clicking on the "Health" section of CNN.com, I can instantly know about anything that has happened in this area during the past week. I actually have it book marked so that I have "one-click health news." Technology is a marvelous thing!
Although I am a die-hard CNN user, I have noticed lately that they do not cover as large of an international scope of news as, say, the BBC. One of my friends chose the BBC News site as her new homepage, and as I was using her computer, I noticed that the site gave so much more insight into global affairs than CNN. On the BBC News homepage, you see the major headlines from each continent and it is easy to explore further. An example is the recent death of the President of Georgia. CNN did not have the story on its front page; it took me several minutes to find information on the story. On the other hand, the BBC had a simple headline stating the incident, and it allowed me the choice of either reading more about it or moving on to other news of more interest to me. With CNN, I wouldn't have known that event had happened. I know that a website cannot have a link on the homepage to every story happening in the world, but I feel that CNN.com could have a better layout to provide more comprehensive worldwide coverage.
The internet has dramatically increased my level of news information. Though print and television are still very important, I feel that the internet had created a new level of informed people in America and beyond. People who never had the time to flip through the newspaper in the morning can now scan the headlines at work between meetings. The news media has a bigger audience than ever, and as a result, has a bigger influence than ever.
Posted by swashaba at 11:04 PM | Comments (1)