How come you're not submitting some of your work to these magazines? There must be some trade magazines you could be reaching out to? Some of the trades I used to report for would pay up to $1.25/word... which beats the crap out of the dailies.

The first thing I thought when I read it was it read as smoothly as your articles, and I eagerly looked for Furious Seasons to be listed as the Zyprexa internal documents website host---and I read the article before I read in your other post that you had spent time with the reporter---my reaction? fuck that, I'd never help a paid reporter with an assignment again--I actually said that out loud to another person who read the article. I'd be pissed, I'd feel used, and I'd give the guy a phone call or an email--it's as if he read this site for a book report; to be that well-versed in ZYprexa and antipsychotics one would have had to spend years researching and understanding it and the documents as you have done.

Keep up the good work here--and I totally agree, tell them NO when they call.

Fans of FURIOUS SEASONS can contact ROLLING STONE to complain about Philip's treatment - and to suggest him as a regular staffer/contributor - here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/contactus-update

Philip, I don't know whether I'm major media or not, since I don't work for The Toronto Star, I am on a month-to-month contract. I get paid by the post. It probably works out to 1 penny per word. And I'm not exaggerating here. No job security. No benefits. I am a freelance writer, like you, and a part-time college teacher.

I do not blame you for feeling as you do. I hope I don't fall into this category.

Just one thought, and it's inspired by Obama. I understand how upset you feel. Frustrated. Overlooked. Cheated. And you are. At the same time, you have an enormous following. Huge.

You sound so angry, and you have every right to feel angry. But... don't you think this post may be burning bridges? Engendering more anger. Really getting mainstream media so angry they won't consult you anymore. Then, what are your chances of being mentioned in mainstream media..

In my blog, I try to credit the writers or at least link to the articles. But I'm not print. When I was for 30 years, I couldn't get away with not crediting them.

That's stealing. But maybe journalistic conventions are different in Canada. Maybe with the internet so ubiquitous, the lines between blogging and writing for print that ends up online are being blurred.

What you describe is a kind of journalistic plagiarism.

Consider this. I wrote a piece for a very prestigious magazine, which they posted. Then they posted an vicious Anonymous letter online. I had to speak to a lawyer about it. Would that happen in print? No. My article wasn't a blog, it was a well-researched story that was completely factual. Print media doesn't publish Anonymous letters. Ever.

The Anonymous commenter (to an article that took eight months to research and write) probably thought it was a blog. This person, before a number of totally inaccurate statements about me, stated the tone of the story "leads me to believe that you have little or no experience with mental illness."

All I'm suggesting, Philip, is that sometimes leaving the doors open, even if rats and squirrels and toads can get in, still leaves you the opportunity to easily get out. Things may change. You never know.

One person, like me, often cites you on a mainstream blog. It's just that I don't write about pharmaceuticals. But I'm featuring Furious Seasons on my new "networked" blog on Facebook.

Now you're on Facebook, too. The Social Network is far more powerful than print or mainstream. And your there, "Furious Seasons" is on Facebook!

The tide may turn. I'd hate to see you hurt because this last straw has broken your already very sore back.

I think the politics of the blogosphere are very divisive. I refuse to go along with them. Mainstream versus Blogosphere. That's bullshit.

They're all going to merge into a new form when print editions of papers begin to discontinue their print editions. Like the Christian Science Monitor, this year. Something new and different will emerge. We live in exciting times.

Who knows what opportunities may lay ahead for you? I think your future could be very bright.

But then, I'm just a cockeyed optimist who is appalled by a state that would allow you to be kicked out of your apartment because you smoke cigarettes and not pot. It's absurd.

Canada is a very different place.

And sadly, we have not, nor will we likely ever in my lifetime by courageous enough to elect the most inspiring, empowering, inclusive, ethical and purposeful changemaker in U.S. history.

Take care, Philip.

Lilly-

Thanks for the website. I will certainly be writing to them and telling them this situation is no different than many incidents that take place in police work. An officer who gets a confession does not get any credit because the officer writing the report takes the credit. I wonder how the media field would like to know they apparently operate under the same "ethics" as some police officers. We know the negative tone some journalists have towards law enforcement (Philip is not included in this) but some journalist need to take a long hard look at their own morals and values.

Philip, I can't fully express my apologies for this and can say for one, every time you write an article, you always credit or link the article you are writing about. I am really starting to think that lacking ethics and morals seem to be affecting every facet of the people. Please know, I will be writing a letter.

Phil, I will definitely contact the Photo Editor I dealt with on the story to let my feelings be known. Beyond that, I frankly think you need to set a fee along with credit terms. If this is a "no", then you say "no". This way, you are at least keeping the door open to sharing what you know, if a deal can be made.

I have found the same - unless the topic is me or my killed son Rob - I have never been mentioned. I would especially be P.O ed if I were a barely paid professional reporter.

Reporters have clients as well:

Press Release: A Well Designed Sales Pitch?

Those who release and create press releases, that are intended to offer information that is authentic and newsworthy, are possibly in collusion with various sources of the mass media who receive these announcements from others with commercial interests in mind, and instruct such media outlets with mandated authoritarian nuances, such as the press release that they created will be void of alteration of any kind of their press release as directed to the receiver by the creator and sponsor of such press releases. The sponsoring organization that composes press releases does so in order to promote their organization and its products, and this much is rather clear.
These well- constructed statements are meticulously composed and customized before they are issued to targeted editors for mass media publication at select locations and times of release by this sponsor. As this is done, the mass media outlets are again instructed on how to present their completed statements, as well as are given instructions once again not to alter these press releases in any way, others have said frequently.
Press releases are a form of public relations often utilized for those companies who create what is supposed to be an attempt to express their products that they wish to convince readers that such products are innovative or newsworthy. Press releases, historically, have been created and released to inform the readers by adding insight and related information for them regarding a particular topic that was typically complete and balanced. Today, they seem to be more or less an annotative commercial with press releases generated by corporations in particular, so it seems.
Unfortunately, and presently, press releases are often embellished, biased, and incomplete with deliberate intent in order to benefit the creator of these documents, who again develops them solely to increase awareness and usage of their products that they promote with their business, which they want to be viewed as favorable with a positive image to the public. One could suggest that the mass media who receives these press releases are transformed into mass front groups who perhaps coercively offer third party legitimacy for the content of the press release as they release this information to their readers.
The often notable if not intentional flaws at times are numerous within such press releases that reflect reckless disregard for the readers, the American Public, who believe that what they are reading is honest and complete. This, however, is not the case is certain situations.
An example is an anonymous and anonymous press release posted on the Medical News Today website (www.medicalnewstoday.com) that is dated in March of 2006. The title: "Cymbalta Safely and Effectively Treats core anxiety symptoms associated with generalized anxiety disorder." Clearly, this title itself includes words associated with relief or elation, which are subjective and not objective elements which would clearly be more appropriate, according to some, if the press release was created to inform the reader, one could say.
The first paragraph of this press release repeats the results mentioned in the title of this article, but also states Cymbalta offers relief of painful symptoms associated with anxiety, as well as improved functional impairment- also claimed to be associated with anxiety in this press release. These conclusions are speculative at best, as these inferences appear to be unexamined by others regarding the benefits claimed to exist with Cymbalta as illustrated in this press release.
Cymbalta was not approved by the FDA for anxiety or any of the symptoms associated with this condition at the time of this press release. In fact, Cymbalta was not filed with the FDA for this speculated new indication for anxiety that was desired by Eli Lilly until May of 2006. By definition, this press release may possibly be off-label promotion as well as misbranding of Cymbalta that was performed overtly in this manner of the press release, one may speculate.
As one continues to read this press release, testimonials were intentionally created and inserted into this press release that illustrated results they hope are impactful to the reader regarding Cymbalta. This testimonial was from the lead author, who expanded the claims made initially with utilizing various medical terms, which was followed by this person’s passionate optimism about the great potential of Cymbalta based on this remarkable study.
This study, by the way, was to be addressed in further detail at a National Anxiety meeting some weeks after this press release was announced to the public on this website. The second testimonial was Eli Lilly's Medical Advisor expressing his elation about what the lead author just stated, followed by how much he was encouraged by these results that will benefit so many others that have these debilitating medical conditions. Of course, profit forecasts regarding Cymbalta remarkably were not stated in this press release.
What is not included in this particular press release was any clear statements regarding the disadvantages and adverse if not toxic events associated those who take Cymbalta. Reactions from Cymbalta users include discontinuation syndrome at times, when the user stops taking this medication, which I understand can be quite devastating for the one experiencing this syndrome. Furthermore acts of suicide and suicidal ideation have been frequently associated with those who take Cymbalta as well. There have been apparent lack of efficacy suggestions by others who have taken Cymbalta. Basically, anything that may be considered negative aspects about this drug were not annotated in this particular press release as it should have been for fair balance that is standard in the pharmaceutical industry and health care journalism. The staff involved with the release and publication of such press releases as this one described should perhaps be more informed on what not to accept and what to present regarding these issues addressed.
As with any reporting by the media, objectivity and thorough completeness of the topic discussed in a press release is a necessary requirement with any publishing that is potentially exposed to so many others- more so with such medical issues in particular.

“The public has a lot at stake, and the media has a responsibility always to be aware of the source of information and the conflicts those sources might have when they report the results of clinical research. People who have financial stake in the results of clinical research can well be biased in the way research is conducted, in the way they report it, and what they say about it when interviewed by the media.” – Arnold Relman, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

Dan Abshear

Well I can't wait to read it and once I do I suspect I'll be writing to editors@rollingstone.com or letters@rollingstone.com or both and asking why Wallace-Wells didn't do a better job of acknowledging his sources. As of last night I couldn't find it on the stands yet.

One more piece you wrote Philip that frosts my cupcakes. When I worked in my newsroom, and I was a media researcher/analyst for CR=I made sure that my boss, and even old Charlie knew everyone I spoke to - whether it was an assistant, or the CEO or Hollywood dude or Political player.

My mom taught me to treat people with respect and to treat people the way I would want to be treated myself. Maybe that is the reason I never got as far as the rest of the family in business, I cannot back stab, and cheat people out of what they deserve, though I had it done to me.

Even on my blog I make sure I credit people.

I have written to Rolling Stone, but I am afraid all that will come out of us writing is a small retraction at the bottom of the letters page in a future issue. Something which I always thought to be bad journalism in it's finest example.

Journalism isn't what it was when Murrow was writing, and not even Woodward and Burnstein. I don't understand it anymore.

Anyone want my press pass?

Philip:

As I read the article in Rolling Stone; I couldn't help but feel I was reading some of your old post from Furious Seasons almost verbatim in some areas of the article. For this so called professional not to credit you for the obvious contributions you made to his piece is beyond an insult and extremely unprofessional; I would ponder to guess this is about as low as it gets in the reporting Biz without complete plagiarism.

We know; we all know where the accolades really belong! Please get going on “Furious Seasons” the Book. You really do have a powerful story to tell, an important message to convey, and an audience that is just waiting to listen. It's past time for your door to open, find the appreciation, and recognition you deserve for your talent and diligent efforts.

I would have to believe a book would sell 20,000 or more copies right out of the gate on this site alone!

Loyal Reader

I'm going to contact rolling stone as soon as I can get a copy and read the article and if it is as it sounds, and I see many of the same things philip has written about here then I am going to let them know to give credit where credit is due.

Ditto on writing to RS. It's outrageous that you get no mention!

i found this site on reddit and frankly I don't care much about this article.. but I LOVE your other posts. I'm very interested in psychology and this site is execllent. Consider me a frequent visitor from now on! ;-)

Alos, if you care about marketing the site.. you ought to spice it up a little bit designwise.. I'm a minimalist but it could use some work.. esp on the fonts.

Philip Dawdy responds: yeah i'd like to update the design somewhat, but i've got no design chops and no money.

Well if you already knew, when you worked at a newspaper, to be sure to clarfiy if you are going to be cited or credited, then how did you forget that?

Maybe that's why you lost your job? Bunch of whinging here...

Philip Dawdy responds: dan, in my experience as a reporter when you interview someone at length, there is no question that some form of attribution will end up following. as for your other assertion, you are wrong. i quit my job at seattle weekly in 2006 after the paper was taken over by new owners and i was asked to commit a crime for a story, something no legitimate journalist would ever do.

Great post. It is technically plagiarism. Fiercely. No questions. At least it might be consoling to realize that RS is a shadow of its former self. Other than the story they ran maybe 3 years ago on the possibility of voter fraud thruogh voter machines, everything else is dreck. Even their retrospective glance at Led Zeppelin, which ran a couple years ago, was total drivel. Worthless. Gutless. The only thing you have in common with RS is a heavy relationship with Marlboro.

So I agree that you ought to talk as long as you are paid either as a consultant or as a researcher. Define the terms and hand over a product, or your time, that has a price tag on it. Otherwise, no deal.

Philip Dawdy responds: i smoke american spirits not marlboros!

Why not just be up front when contacted? Tell them you'll
be happy to let them use your expertise, but you require
an acknowledgment in any resulting article, including a URL
for your site? You've tried in implicit quid quo pro, and that
hasn't worked well. You can walk away, but that wastes some
opportunities. Try something explicit. If they don't think
you're worth it, you've saved yourself a bunch of time.

Hey, me too (((Philip))) smoking an American Spirit is sublime! I keep checking this thread, waiting for the author to come by and 'splain his damn self. Where the heck is he?!

I had this exact problem when I was writing my own little blog about crime stories. So I eventually just became the guy writing the articles for pay. You clearly are an able enough writer to do this yourself. It can be pretty satisfying. You should really go for it -- but I can tell you this -- even if the writer with whom you are working has the best of intentions, sometimes the editor is to blame. They will remove stuff from a story out of pique.

While the lay audience may be deceived. Those that know your work already will recognize it even without attribution. Recording interviews will provide an audit trail.

Lately I'm in constant perplexity with the lack of respect, dignity, values...
Rolling Stones and Ben Wallace-Wells
You are scumbags.
I'm sorry but I'm too tired to say things in a nice way.

Just went to send some words of support. I see that you're getting some traffic from Reddit. You made it to the front page. Hopefully there will be some donations coming in as well. Best of luck!

Hrm... Am I reading this right? you haven't read the article and you're basing your rant on hearsay?

Are there others around here that -have- read the article in question to confirm that indeed you're not being credited?

Philip Dawdy responds: no hearsay involved. the initial readers who informed me of the situation are all smart well-read folks whom i know and trust. the basic facts have also now been confirmed by many other readers and a journalist friend of mine in nyc who read the rs piece this am. facts have also been confirmed by the author of the piece in an email to me today. but thanks for thinking i was being baseless.

It's pretty much the law of the land that acknowledgement of another persons hard graft is common courtesy. I'm speechless at this wanton disregard of acknowledgement.

I haven't read the article, to be honest, reading it would leave a bitter aftertaste in my mouth now.

I don't know what else to say Phil other than your initial reporting made folk sit up and take notice. That in itself should give you comfort.

Respect

Fid

I came here to read your article, but the font on this site makes me want to drive hot nails into my eyes.

Philip Dawdy responds: yikes, don't do that dude. feel free to suggest a different font, as i'm not sure what's showing up on your browser and at what size and at what darkness.

You are obviously his primary source. Not citing one's sources is plagiarism. Since David Dobbs has intentionally engaged in academic plagiarism, he should be blacklisted from the industry. There is no excuse for this sort of behavior.

Philip Dawdy responds: just to clarify, i think dr. bennett means the author of the rs article not dobbs. dobbs didn't write it. i haven;t read the article so i can say nothing specific about plagarism, cribbing, etc. and am making no allegations beyond what i've already written.

Cops. Reporters. Don't talk to either.

And I'm not being facetious, as I've worked as both.

Great post, BTW.

I've been reading this site for over two years and I actually like the font and I like the minimalist design too.

RS is still not on the stands here in CA. I notice that the blurb on the website summarizing the article does sound rather like it's adopting hook, line and sinker the point of view of PD. Is Wallace-Wells a neophyte or what? Did he not get that he was supposed to acknowledge you? I admit to being cautious about when and where I do "brain dumps" on topics that are near and dear to my heart and into which I have plowed a lot of emotional energy even when I think I might be "saving the world" and your experience seems to confirm the wisdom of that approach. It's too bad it has to be that way though. I'm sorry.

this pisses me off. philip has gotten our back as patients for years, so we should get his. he stood up to eli lilly and astrazeneca and janssen.

editors@rollingstone.com is where you can write the editors i guess and ask them how he couldn't have been mentioned or his blog attributed to in some fashion.

I'm confused by Dr. Bennett's comment - I thought Ben Wallace-Wells was the writer who committed the plagiarism, and David Dobbs was the one who actually gave credit where credit is due. Isn't that right?

A somewhat related thing happened to me on a different scale. For several months, I dug deep into SEC filings and analyzed the information against the claims of a pharma co. which had raised the price of it's lead (basically only) product by over 1300%. Yes, that's 14x the previous price and a drug approved to treat MS exacerbations and used off-label for Infantile Spasms.

The information gained notice with researchers at the PRIME institute, the Senate office in Minnesota, and the Fed Trade Commission in DC. Eventually, a Joint Economic Committee hearing was held in DC and one of the witnesses (representing the patient view) asked me to write something for her to submit with her testimony.

I attended the hearing and was amazed at some of the info presented. Afterwards, I approached the researcher who spoke and introduced myself as a blogger. She lit up and knew exactly who I was and told me that she had used some of my research in their report. She also stated that there was no way that one of them would have spent the enormous amount of time I must have to collect the various numbers which were 'hidden' within years of SEC filings. The researcher would not have bothered, but I had. How's that irony for you?

After the hearing, my blog received increased traffic as people looked for more info. Several lengthy visits came from a USA Today computer. Two weeks later an article appeared in USA Today which sounded similar to my own take on things. But of course, the PRIME institute was quoted....not me.

That turn of events bothered me greatly!!!

If you use my research directly, or conduct the same for yourself based on my analysis, then at least contact me to discuss why I chose those specifics to examine.

So, basically, I'm trying to say that I understand where you're coming from. Where's the honor?

Philip,

You know I steward a lot of media stories too and over the years I've learned a couple of lessons.

1. You can't get words back once they're in print, so,

2. Work with writers you know or have a reason to trust, and

3. Two agreements up front, everything I say is on the record, and, my quotes / info gets accurately cited. Burn me once and I don't return phone calls.

Before I talked with you the first time I called two or three of your co-workers and read five or eight of your stories. You were coming out at the time and I appreciated that, wanted to support that.

Otherwise we would have danced a while.

Although I absolutely sympathize with your anger here, I have to wonder: why do you keep writing about things before you've read them?

Philip Dawdy responds: dear bitchy mccranky, i vetted my info in this post with several readers i know and trust before posting. i was satisfied with the info and i stand by my post. why do you use a fake name and a fake email? or is that the san francisco way these days?

Congrats on noticing that your strategy has been failing for quite some time. Now change it.

If you need more help, contact me and perhaps we can work out a deal.

Philip Dawdy responds: phil, yes i've finally given up on my colleagues in reporter land. their loss.

wow, the bitter ppl attacking font choice, and commenting about Philip not reading the article?

I get the mag in the mail; I read it, I had a friend read it to double check I didn't miss a mention of Philip or Furious Seasons in the article and anyone who reads it when available will see, IT'S NOT THERE, this is NOT HEARSAY, it's FACT.

The way the article reads, it is obvious the reporter was primed by Philip---right down to the Reese's peanut butter cup pharma rep story---anyone who reads this site will notice the similarity, and then to realize Philip spent time with the reporter briefing him on the information--well the reporter lacks basic integrity, basic courtesy would have had a mention of where to find the Zyprexa documents at minimum---face it the reporter got his paycheck and didn't give a shit about anyone else.

Maybe some of the naysayers here don't realize Philip is an award winning published investigative reporter, and the one from Rolling Stone aced his article as a direct result of Philip's knowledge.

I've been a reader of this site for 3 years, and one thing I can say personally about Philip is that he has integrity and moral ethics, journalistic integrity and ethics, he holds honor and doing the right thing in high regard, and is truthful. Kind and generous as a person with his time for others in a field where many are lost to the system, he takes time away from this site for others that many know nothing about.

He deserves respect, he has earned it, worked hard for it, and I thank him for it.

To quote a reddit post here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7st4p/why_i_wont_help_reporters_authors_any_longer/c07b6qs

The adult way to handle this:
Read the fucking article first.
E-mail/call article's author
E-mail/call Rolling Stone
Blog about it.

This dude has a right to be pissed, but he went about this backwards. If Rolling Stone heard from him and refuses to publish a correction and/or be nice to him... THEN you throw an online tantrum; not first, and not before you've even RTFA.

Philip Dawdy responds: it's my blog anonymous guy and i do as i wish. as clearly indicated i have communicated with article author. now go take a hike techie boy.

Wow. For a guy who allegedly has a background in journalism, you sure do come across as naive. Naive and prone to fly off the handle.

But I guess being bi-polar will do that to a guy.

Philip Dawdy responds: you are banned, dude.

I get the mag in the mail; I read it, I had a friend read it to double check I didn't miss a mention of Philip or Furious Seasons in the article and anyone who reads it when available will see, IT'S NOT THERE, this is NOT HEARSAY, it's FACT.

Again, the term "hearsay" has nothing to do with the truth of a subject; it has to do with whether one acquired the information first hand. Until Mr. Dawdy actually reads the article himself, the information he has about it is indeed hearsay.

I think the criticism regarding Mr. Dawdy's posts about articles he hasn't read is valid.

Philip Dawdy responds: dude, i am so tired of you being a baiter. the fact is the author himself told me i ain't the article. understand? that would be firsthand since he wrote the piece.

you know lkhllwd, i wonder how many psychiatrists actually read the articles/abstracts that support their use of a certain psych med, or if they and their collegues talk about it as "hearsay". I know several psych's who discuss meds such as Abilify, and compare patient's outcomes on it w/ the other.

Talk about mountain out of a mole hill!

I'm with Susan (as she, like Philip and me, is an ex-traditional style journalist).

I simply don't recognize the profession these days. I was taught in J-school to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But now, you only get ahead if you comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted -- just like the sad ethic in so many American industries.

With such lowering of our national standards (and not just in newspapers/magazines), no wonder we've fallen into the Great Recession.

I'm so sorry about this, Philip. You don't deserve to be treated like this. It's simply unethical, not to mention utterly infuriating.

I just left a message to Ben Wallace Wells at the site.
It's online and since it's the virtual world I believe it's more important to indicate all the sources.