By Naseem S. Miller
Ocala (Fla.) Star-Banner
It seemed like a good idea at the time, and it lasted only one issue.
The Capital, a 47,000-circulation daily newspaper in Annapolis, Md., sold its weekly Health Page to Anne Arundel Medical Center, a local hospital, one day in March, putting it in charge of all content, including the stories and layout.
The newspaper ran a disclaimer at the top of the page about the partnership for the sake of transparency.
Tom Marquardt, the paper's publisher, wrote in a column that the newspaper was "experimenting with a new concept that could alarm some readers."
He also warned the readers that the stories were not balanced with comments from other hospitals or doctors not affiliated with AAMC.
The day the Health Page was published, the alarms went off so loudly and so clearly that the newspaper ended the agreement with the hospital.
The deal, or partnership, was ethically and journalistically wrong, unfair to the readers and a bad business decision, according to experts, and even the paper's publisher.
"When I came to this, it was already a done deal," said Marquardt. "I wished I could have stopped it."
Most newspapers across the nation are struggling with declining revenue from advertisements and subscriptions, but "the principle of independence is essential to the credibility of a news organization," said Bob Steele, the journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. "If you turn the process of news gathering and the news product itself over to the advertisers or sources in the story, then you undermine the credibility of the journalism. You are not independent."
Anne Arundel Medical Center still runs ads in The Capital although it is no longer involved in the paper's Health Page.
But striking such deals with local hospitals or other medical providers is not uncommon, although they're more predominant among local television stations than newspapers, according to Steele.
Local television stations have made agreements with hospitals to focus on certain coverage of medical issues and only use physicians from that hospital, or they guarantee coverage from those who buy ads, explained Steele.
But The Capital was bolder.
In fact, it offered the four-month deal to AAMC after the hospital suggested buying half of the Health Page.
Marquardt tried to explain in his column, and in the interview for this story, the logic behind the decision.
The paper doesn't have a health reporter to write about medical issues. (Its only health reporter covers the hospitals and other medical institutions, but not health issues and features.)
So it often used "stories from syndicated services that quote doctors from other cities," Marquardt said. The partnership with the hospital could give local physicians and programs a voice.
"Instead of generic stories originating from another city, the reader will have local news featuring people they recognize, doctors they use and services that are available to them," Marquardt wrote in his March 16 column. "The hospital staff is getting to the stories we are not able to write because of other priorities."
In addition, "We were using press releases from the hospitals, and their staff are writing those press releases," he said in a phone interview. "It's impossible to reach the doctors and the hospital acts as their mouthpiece."
But that turned out to be the exact root of the problem.
The one and only AAMC Health Page was controversial enough that the other hospital in the paper's coverage area, Baltimore-Washington Medical Center, called it "unfair."
The readers too felt cheated. One of the "stories" on the page was promoting the hospital's lung screening program, but it read like a news article.
"If the newspaper was selling advertisements to the hospital, then sell it as advertising, and label it as advertising," Steele said. "But don't corrupt journalism by making what amounts to advertising, and make it look like, smell like, feel like news coverage."
Steele added:"That's unfair to the readers; it's unfair to other stakeholders, including the competing hospital. It's unwise journalistically, and it's unwise from the business standpoint."
Since the end of the partnership, The Capital is back to its old routine.
"We're using syndicated materials written by reporters. They originate in other cities and other doctors are quoted. But we don't have the staff," to make them local, Marquardt said. "But we're trying to get local."
The newspaper's new policy for stories and information from local hospitals and medical providers?
"If they want to say something, they've got to buy an ad," Marquardt said.
And the lesson learned? "Even though you're trying to be transparent [about a partnership], you cross an ethical line when you try to sell your news base. That's selling out," Marquardt said.
Meanwhile, the hospital is still running ads in the paper, and is thinking about other ideas.
"When they first came to us, we were a little hesitant," said Martha Harlan, executive director of public relations, marketing, and corporate communications at AAMC. She said some of her staff used to be reporters and when they heard about the deal they too were hesitant. Harlan said she too was a reporter at one time.
But, "There is a very good and viable opportunity to partner with a media outlet to provide good health content for the readers. And as long as it's unbiased and factual and serves the readers, it would be fine," Harlan said.
She said the hospital is trying to work with the paper to have columns written by its doctors and nurses about nonbiased, informative issues such as stroke.
Yet, columns can get into murky waters, said Steele.
Despite the fact that the newspaper called off the deal, Steele said the action could hurt the credibility of the paper.
And let's not forget about the reporters.
"[The Capital] blew up an ethical landmine and there are casualties. And journalists have to work in that battlefield," Steele said.
Naseem Miller is a health reporter for the Ocala (Fla.) Star-Banner.
