Jim Edwards of BNET.com writes about how some big media companies have filed briefs in a U.S. Supreme Court case considering whether pharmaceutical companies have the right to obtain prescription drug data.
Edwards writes, “Now imagine that data in the hands of the media. I’m an infamous First Amendment absolutist — I spent four years litigating to force a New York court to open documents describing corruption on Madison Avenue — but even I am not sure that the press should be able to figure out what your local senator or pop star most recently went to the doctor for.
“The media firms know this, too. The AP/Bloomberg/Propublica brief devotes several pages to the awesomeness of their own database-sifting skills. They claim there is a ‘public interest’ in monitoring prescription drug databases in order to detect adverse events from bad drugs. This is true — but the FDA already maintains the gold standard database for that information, and it’s already available to the public.
“Even if there were some public interest advantage to giving the media access to Rx information, it would come coupled with the pharmaceutical industry’s continued access to the same. I can assure you that Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Merck et al.’s interest in these databases will be far more enduring, better resourced, more granular and more thorough than Bloomberg’s will ever be.”
Read more here.
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…
The Financial Times has hired Barbara Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels. She will start…
CNBC.com deputy technology editor Todd Haselton is leaving the news organization for a job at The Verge.…
Note from CNBC Business News senior vice president Dan Colarusso: After more than 27 years…
Members of the CoinDesk editorial team have sent a letter to the CEO of its…
The Capitol Forum is seeking a detail-oriented and collaborative Deputy Managing Editor to support the…