Jake writes "The New York Times pharmaceutical industry reporter Alex Berenson scored a heck of a Page One scoop last week when he revealed that Eli Lilly was looking to reach a settlement with federal prosecutors over the company s alleged inappropriate marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. A staggering settlement figure of $1 billion or more was mentioned." Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
We can't honestly fault the Times or its reporter for breaking this story. I would have done the same thing back in the day. But Mr. Berenson mislead [sic] by omission. He should have been upfront with readers about how he learned of the settlement talks. Since there was no official confirmation from either side, doing so would have gone a long way toward letting readers judge the credibility of the story for themselves.
No, clearly he was protecting his source: the person accidentally sending him the messages instead of the intended recipient. Disclosing that source would have closed that avenue of disclosure just as if the person was intending to leak the information and was fired once identified.
This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the i
Protecting Accidental Source (Score:2)
We can't honestly fault the Times or its reporter for breaking this story. I would have done the same thing back in the day. But Mr. Berenson mislead [sic] by omission. He should have been upfront with readers about how he learned of the settlement talks. Since there was no official confirmation from either side, doing so would have gone a long way toward letting readers judge the credibility of the story for themselves.
No, clearly he was protecting his source: the person accidentally sending him the messages instead of the intended recipient. Disclosing that source would have closed that avenue of disclosure just as if the person was intending to leak the information and was fired once identified.