How the news covered the drugs
Half the US news stories quoting an expert or study on a drug quoted at least one with a financial tie to its maker. Only 39% of those stories said so.
We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: What is measured versus what is asserted, per the framing rule in the verified record: these three studies measure coverage QUALITY - benefits inflated, harms omitted, conflicts undisclosed - and none of them measures why. No robust empirical literature links pharmaceutical advertising revenue at an outlet to that outlet's drug-safety coverage decisions (the classic ad-revenue studies are about tobacco, a different industry, and are not presented as pharma evidence). This row presents the measured record and asserts no cause; "media buries drug harms because pharma pays them" publishes beyond the evidence and is on the do-not-publish list.
Coverage quality is not a matter of impression. It has been measured in three peer-reviewed studies across three countries, and the pattern repeats.
Significant findings
Of 170 US stories citing an expert or a study, 50% cited at least one with a disclosed financial tie to the drug's maker. Only 39% of those stories disclosed the tie.
The same study found 40% gave no figure for benefit at all. Of those that did, 83% gave relative benefit only - "cuts risk in half" rather than out of 100.
It replicated. A 2008 US review of 500 health stories found 62% to 77% failed on costs, harms, benefits, evidence quality or alternatives. A 2003 Canadian study of 193 articles found 68% never mentioned harms.
These studies measure the coverage, not the reason for it. No solid evidence links a news outlet's drug-ad revenue to its coverage decisions, and none is claimed.
Worth asking
Use their criteria as your own checklist. What is the absolute benefit, out of 100 people? What are the harms?
Who funded the study, and does the quoted expert have a tie? Bring the answers to a prescriber rather than acting on a headline.
Source
Coverage by the News Media of the Benefits and Risks of Medications — Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, et al. (2000)
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006013422206
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200006013422206
How this was scored
- Study design
- not recorded
- Funding
- not recorded
- Published in
- not recorded
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
We have not finished checking this source, so there is no scoring to show yet. “We have not checked this yet” and “this is disputed” are different statements, so no scored band is shown rather than a low one.
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 31, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "not yet assessed". We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. One caveat travels with that badge: What is measured versus what is asserted, per the framing rule in the verified record: these three studies measure coverage QUALITY - benefits inflated, harms omitted, conflicts undisclosed - and none of them measures why. No robust empirical literature links pharmaceutical advertising revenue at an outlet to that outlet's drug-safety coverage decisions (the classic ad-revenue studies are about tobacco, a different industry, and are not presented as pharma evidence). This row presents the measured record and asserts no cause; "media buries drug harms because pharma pays them" publishes beyond the evidence and is on the do-not-publish list. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Coverage by the News Media of the Benefits and Risks of Medications — Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, et al. (2000). DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200006013422206. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.