The L.A. Times tells us that the lawsuit says many of the doctors who let salespeople look at patients’ files were essentially on the take from Amgen, getting “as much as thousands of dollars to host dinners and lectures advising physicians and patients about the drug.”

While the doctor/pharmaceutical company conflict-of-interest story has been told before, it’s an ongoing one of critical importance. We’d like to hear from these doctors who were allegedly selling out their patients’ privacy.

Stories about studies are too often not much besides warmed-over press releases. Take for instance last week’s coverage of a study by the Minnesota Federal Reserve that found Wal-Mart’s effect on the communities it enters is small but mostly positive. Forbes used the results to shill for the retail giant with a story headlined “Wal-Mart Is Good For You” on its website.

Behold the fanboy context graph:

The retail behemoth, which grew to dominance through a strategy of serving lower- to middle-income customers, is one of the greatest success stories in American business history. Some economists give more credit to the company than to Alan Greenspan for the low inflation of the past 20 years, given how greatly its low-cost model has rippled through the industry and the economy.

Not much reporting by Forbes here—study accepted, no questions asked (except to the author of a book called “Wal-Mart Revolution”). Also, a fact error in the story implies that Wal-Mart sells cars. That’s one of the few businesses it hasn’t gone into yet.

A Reuters story didn’t do much better, quoting only the study’s author and a Wal-Mart flack. You’d never know from either story that there are plenty of other studies out there that have reached different conclusions.

Thankfully, Bloomberg rides in with a balanced article that proves skeptical journalism is in fact still in practice:

“There is strong evidence that jobs created by Wal-Mart in metropolitan areas pay less and are less likely to offer benefits than those they replace,” a study by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded last month.

In urban and suburban areas with Wal-Marts, and where jobs tend to be higher-paid, “we found an impact that is quite significant,” said Ken Jacobs, a University of California, Berkeley, professor who co-authored the December study. Jacobs said the labor center’s findings in rural areas were similar to today’s study.

That wasn’t so hard, now was it?

Conspicuously absent from The Wall Street Journal’s page-one story on Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne’s resignation was any mention of his pot-smoking, a detail that lit up its great page-one story (that surely hastened his demise) two months ago.

Perhaps the WSJ is backing off its reporting. Or maybe the Journal belatedly agrees with critics who thought writing about it was one toke over the line.

Where’s an ombudsman when you need one?

• 1
• 2