Frederick Goodwin - Why the NY Times is Wrong

Back when I was in law school, our lecturer raised this hypothetical: A newspaper runs a story about Bill Smith seen entering a house of prostitution. Can Bill Smith sue the newspaper for defamation?

It turns out he can if Bill was simply a plumber there to fix a leaky faucet.

Defamation is not simply about facts. It's about innuendos.

"Radio Host Has Drug Company Ties," ran a story in the Nov 21 New York Times.

The article revealed that Frederick Goodwin MD, host of "The Infinite Mind," which aired on NPR earned at least $1.3 million from drug companies from 2000 to 2007, income that was not reported on the show.

Dr Goodwin, former head of the NIMH, is the leading authority on bipolar disorder.

According to the NY Times, on one show Dr Goodwin told his audience that “modern treatments — mood stabilizers in particular — have been proven both safe and effective in bipolar children.” That same year, Dr Goodwin received more than $300,000 from GSK "for promoting Lamictal."

On another show, according to the article, Dr Goodwin stated that "there is no credible evidence linking antidepressants to violence or to suicide." The NY Times pointed out at the same time that Dr Goodwin received funding from GSK, "which for years suppressed studies showing that its antidepressant, Paxil, increased suicidal behaviors."

According to the NY Times, the producer of "The Infinite Mind," Bill Lichtenstein, "asked [Dr Goodwin] point-blank if he was receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies, directly or indirectly, and the answer was, ‘No.’ ”

The article produced a flurry of commentary on the blogosphere, most of it from well-meaning individuals who assumed that because the story appeared in the NY Times, it had to be true. These individuals share my concern over the corrupting influence the drug industry has on psychiatry, much to the detriment of patients.

But was the NY Times correct about Dr Goodwin? Certainly, the "facts" have him at the scene of the crime. But was the story accurate in its innuendo? A week later, in an editorial entitled "Expert or Shill," the Times came to the conclusion that "appalling conflicts of interest ... throw into doubt the advice rendered and the research performed" by Dr Goodwin and another prominent psychiatrist.

Moreover, Dr Goodwin "potentially stood to benefit from the recommendations he made on the program."

Pretty strong innuendo, there.

Dr Goodwin tells a far different story. In a public statement he just released, Dr Goodwin reports that prior to the story, he talked for nearly an hour on the phone with NY Times reporter Gardiner Harris, and in an email exchange. According to Dr Goodwin, "most of the important information I provided was left out of the story."

According to Dr Goodwin: "The article implied that I asserted on the air that 'there is no credible scientific evidence linking antidepressants to violence and suicide' because of my ties to drug companies."

But Dr Goodwin points out that he never received income for promoting Paxil. Moreover, his comments were made in the context of the debate surrounding an FDA black box warning. Dr Goodwin and other experts took issue with the term, "suicidality," which they felt embraced a range of behaviors far too wide to show a credible link. Dr Goodwin was in favor of a less-loaded term.