Here is yet another example of the usual media trivializing and scapegoating of Pharmaceutical companies. Interesting that it comes out the same day that Merck has announced massive layoffs of its workers (heard it on Fox News and this news item was the only link I could find right now).
As it happens, I haven't noted a rush to hire any "ugly" TV news anchors (at least in the looks department). It seems to me that the News and Entertainment industry has far more of a psychological investment in "beautiful people" who happen to be paid far more than they are worth objectively. There are even movies made about the stereotype (Anchorman comes to mind).
If I were the NY Times, I would spearhead a movement to clean- up the MSM Barbie and Ken talking news dolls--who are also in the market to "sell" a particular product/storyline in much the same way they so cleverly suggest the pharmaceutical companies are doing.
I have written before about the media/leftist "witch hunt" perpetrated on the Drug Industry--a witch hunt that masquerades as concern for the consumer and the public. Instead of a "witch hunt" today we have a "cheerleader hunt". Same thing. I suppose businesses aren't supposed to hire good-looking, socially comfortable, enthusiastic people? Of course, the implication is that cheerleaders are...well, not quite intellectually up to the mark, shall we say? Unlike the extremely talented news anchors like Anderson what's his name.
This is just the latest of many attacks on a business that invests millions of dollars and employs thousands of hard-working and conscientious people to develop and market the medications we have come to take for granted in this country.
Not only that, but these companies they give billions of dollars worth of free medication samples to organizations such as the one I work for; all have patient assistance programs for those who can't afford the medications; AND they practically subsidize continuning medical education in this country (since doctors are generally too cheap to pay what such education really is worth). But all that pales to insignificance because they dare to expect a profit from their business!
How typically capitalistic of them.
Why everyone knows that left to their own devices and without constant government supervision, these oppressive organizations would be out there killing people simply to increase their profit margin.
That, at least, is the left's attitude. And they market that attitude with great gusto, I must say.
Lest you doubt that ideas have consequences; and that BAD (or stupid) ideas often have BAD consequences, you might check out thistoday or this one from earlier in the year.
I wonder if those thousands of people laid off by Merck because of the Vioxx lawsuits are appreciative of the left's herculean efforts to champion the oppressed and downtrodden? If not, I'm sure they soon will be--particularly since they now most certainly fit the definition of oppressed and downtrodden.
The question is, who is responsible for making them that way? If you haven't figured out whose bad ideas are responsible for this humanitarian disaster, I suggest you read this post .