I really can't do much but sigh.
A front-page article on Jan. 14 reported on an ad campaign for the first medicine approved for fibromyalgia, a chronic disorder characterized by widespread pain and fatigue, “whose very existence is questioned by some doctors.”
“I am outraged that a reputable publication such as yours would publish such a nonsensical article about fibromyalgia,” wrote Joanne Nuckton of Tucson, who was angry that anyone would doubt her constant pain, inability to concentrate and “profound” exhaustion. “I request that you publish an article which states a different point of view,” she said.
The article by Alex Berenson, a business reporter who covers the drug industry, did state the view of someone with fibromyalgia and doctors who believe the condition is real and even undertreated. In fact, it gave slightly more space to them than to the skeptics, including the physician who first wrote the guidelines for how to diagnose fibromyalgia in 1990 but no longer believes it is a disease.
The article’s opening lines — “Fibromyalgia is a real disease. Or so says Pfizer ... ” — veered toward sarcasm and may have intensified the negative reaction. Berenson explained that with the article headed for the front page, “we wanted something snappy” at the top.
But even had the first paragraph dropped the attitude and adopted the straightforward, down-the-middle tone of the rest of the article, it might not have satisfied those with fibromyalgia symptoms, because any suggestion of a controversy, to them, is a suggestion that their suffering is all in their heads.
“There clearly is something very different and very wrong with these patients, but the statement that we know what is happening or we know how to treat it is just vastly overrated,” said Michael Lockshin, a New York rheumatologist and editor in chief of the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism.
Lockshin said “there is fairly hard science coming up” about how the brain processes pain signals that may offer better understanding. But, he said, “the science is really inchoate right now.”
That seems like the perfect time for a newspaper to give a balanced presentation of what divided experts believe. I think The Times did. Lockshin put on his editor’s hat and said he thought so too.
If you actually looked over the research (and you'll find more than enough to occupy your time here and here), rather than just picking out two opposing "experts" to interview, you'd find ample evidence that fibromyalgia is an actual physiological disorder, and little to support the idea that fibromyalgia is fully psychosomatic (beyond the extent to which any symptom we feel can be amplified by mental stresses) or "overexaggerated."
And there's more to giving fair consideration to an idea than splitting the paragraphs between pro and con: the attitude of the overall reporting makes a great deal of difference. When you start out with a frame of "the drug company just made this disorder up to pad their profit margin!" you aren't going to be able to manage a respectful article, no matter what you say after that. Keep in mind that we've had a name for the disorder for decades now, and the major drug companies didn't start paying attention to us until the beginning of this decade.
And thanks for that off-hand slap on the cheek, there: "It doesn't matter what we say; those hypochondriacs would just bitch at us anyhow." Actually, you'll find that if you drop the contrarian-for-the-status-quo attitude, and look at things with an open mind and a curious heart, you'd get far better reactions. I suggest looking to the Los Angeles Times for an example of quality reporting on the subject. Your attempt, on the other hand, fell short. You might consider why. I don't think it's on the reader's end.
