Does it undermine PBS’s credibility?
My view is that Chester’s eagle-eye provides a continuing, very useful challenge to PBS, a challenge that I agree with even though I sympathize with PBS’s constant search for funding, the difficulty of finding sponsorships to bolster more traditional funding, and that fact that some funders simply have an interest in seeing subjects aired and are willing to take their chances on how the program will come out. But in this case, there is little doubt how a program about obesity is going to turn out. Even though GlaxoSmithKline came in late and, under PBS policy, has no say in any of the content, this kind of possible conflict can undermine credibility and, without knowing the financial details, doesn’t seem worth it.
Related posts:
- Documentary: The Man with the 7 Second Memory
- How will the media influence health reform?
- Why is Sweden allowing murderers and rapists to become doctors?
- It’s time for a physician documentary
- Ban IVF for the obese?
- Do we almost have universal health care already?
- Expanding health care options
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
This type of grant, the unrestricted grant, is commonplace. I believe that in the balance, the unrestricted grant is more beneficial then detrimental to the consumer, though certainly not entirely benign.
Comments on this entry are closed.