Petrelis Files

Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: ACT UP visits Punch Sulzberger's 5th Avenue apartment
Date: 3/31/2004 3:57:00 PM Central Standard Time
From: public@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)


Dear Mr. Petrelis,

Thank you for your message.

If Mr. Altman's articles concern you, please cite current specific examples and we will look into them.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
^^^^

Arthur Bovino
The New York Times
New York, NY

Dear Mr. Bovino,

You’re welcome and thank you for contacting me.

There are several recent articles by Dr. Altman that concern me.

In his March 9, 2004, story from the CDC’s annual STD conference he wrote, “early reports indicate that syphilis rates jumped in 2003 for the third consecutive year.

”The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had expected to eliminate syphilis in this country by 2005, but the agency has virtually abandoned this goal. At a news conference, Dr. John M. Douglas Jr., who directs a program at the centers to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, said, ‘We won't be there by then.’" [1]

What troubles me about this passage is that I believe Dr. Altman’s blind loyalty to the CDC interferes with his truly examining their failure to stop the rise of syphilis.

The CDC in October 1999, with great fanfare, announced an ambitious five-year plan to eliminate syphilis from the United States. [2]

This plan projected $186.8 million in federal funds for the effort, an additional $100.4 million from state and local health departments, for a total of $287.2 million dedicated to CDC’s syphilis elimination. [3]

CDC’s stated goal of wiping out syphilis is an abject failure, considering rates rose for three years running and no end to the rise in view, and with close to $300 million dollars apparently having had no impact on controlling this sexual infection.
I would expect an unbiased medical reporter to write a balanced story on the topic of syphilis, the CDC’s five-year plan coming to an end, an analysis of its results, and the voices of CDC critics, giving proper attention to assessing what went wrong with CDC syphilis prevention. Of course, this would require a reporter without a special arrangement with his editors because of his well-established connections to the federal disease centers, and that is not Altman.

Altman, who favorably tilts all CDC-related stories toward his former employer, excludes activists and researchers critical of the agency. And the Times didn’t disclose Altman’s links to CDC -- a fact of which Times readers should continually be reminded. [4]

A March 11 story by Altman about a new study from the San Francisco Department of Public Health on the use of crystal meth and Viagra by gay men and related rising HIV infection rates followed Altman’s pattern of only quoting the researchers and the federal funding agency, which in this case was the CDC. By the way, there are questions about those statistics. [5]

This story also didn’t mention that one of the San Francisco researchers, Dr. William Wong, currently employed by the city’s health department, is also a graduate of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service. Other alumni of the EIS include Dr. Altman.

Altman’s February 28 article about better detection and prevention of infectious diseases for women and newborns is another example of how he sees just one side to a given story. The voices of CDC and UNAIDS leaders are contained in the story, and comments from people outside these institutions are excluded. [6]

Another Altman story in which only the views of CDC researchers and their collaborators merit attention was his February 17 article about improving HIV reporting to better reflect the scope of the epidemic. [7]

In this article Altman wrote that, “Dr. Denis Nash, formerly of the city health department and now with the New York Academy of Medicine, reported New York City data on new H.I.V. cases for 2001.”

Nothing wrong with that on the surface, however, Altman failed to disclose to readers he is a fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine; an important fact that may have influenced his reportage. [8]

Let’s also look at Altman’s January 10 story about the deaths of 93 children from influenza. Another Altman news account in which just a CDC official, in this case the head of the agency Dr. Julie Gerberding, is quoted. [9]

And one critic has pointed out how truly crazy Altman’s angle on this story was. [10]

There is also his January 3 article about the avian flu spreading across Asia. Only the opinions of World Health Organization officials are included. No voices from outside this agency are quoted, showing again Altman’s predilection for getting a single side to a story. [11]

Furthermore, Altman reported that, “medical and veterinary schools need to cooperate more [to control the bird flu], said Dr. Frederick A. Murphy, dean emeritus of the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.”

What was left out was the fact that Altman is associated with this university. He serves without pay on the board of visitors of the medical school at the University of California’s Davis campus, which should have been revealed to readers. [12]

This is not Altman’s only association with the university. His book, “Who Goes First? The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine,” is published by the University of California Press, background that should have been brought to the attention of readers. [13]

I am particularly astonished by the Times’ lack of disclosure of Dr. Altman’s conflicts given how rigorous your standards seem to be:

“A restaurant review in the Dining section last Wednesday about Spice Market, on West 13th Street in Manhattan, awarded it three stars. The writer was Amanda Hesser, The Times's interim restaurant critic. Last May, before her assignment to that post, Ms. Hesser published a book, ‘Cooking for Mr. Latte,’ that was praised in a jacket blurb by the restaurateur Jean-Georges Vongerichten, who later opened Spice Market. He wrote: ‘Amanda Hesser's charming personality shines as the reader experiences the life and loves of a New York City gourmet. `Cooking for Mr. Latte' is perfectly seasoned with sensuality and superb recipes.’ The review should have disclosed that background.” [14]

Odd that the Times thinks it necessary to issue a note about a restaurant critic’s conflict of interest with someone she is reviewing, but the same disclosure is not required of Altman and his past and present associations with a federal agency, a university and a professional organization he covers.

I eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA

Sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.