Follow the Money, Not the TV Expert
Many “debunkers” in media are on the industry payroll — but you're not being told
Today, I watched a dermatologist on Fox News debunking the idea that some chemicals in sunscreen aren’t good for us. It sounded illogically dismissive of some of the studies and research.
I took a quick look at her background.
I didn’t hear her disclose her paid relationships with big sunscreen makers.
This is part of a trend that I discovered decades ago. It permeates our news media landscape.
The media gives voice to often the same group of “experts” who dismiss or “debunk,” and who try to silence conversation about, the health concern of the day and any studies related to it.
But the experts aren’t independent. They’re what I consider paid propagandists. And too often, the media doesn’t do the basic job of asking the simple question about financial conflicts of interest, and disclosing the answer.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with interviewing someone who’s paid by a company or special interest. The problem comes when the relationship is relevant to the discussion, yet kept hidden from viewers, who need to know so that they have the information they need to weight the advice they’re hearing.
If a doctor is on TV insisting cigarettes aren’t harmful, wouldn’t you weight his opinion differently if you learned he gets paid by the cigarette makers?
Because we in the news media too often aren’t asking the question and reporting the answer, we are tools of the propagandists. They secretly laugh at how easy it is to get a free platform to influence masses on behalf of their paid interests.
We’re being used.
Read on for details.
It doesn’t stop with the sunscreen example.
Later on the same day that I watched the sunscreen doctor try to convince millions of viewers not to give another thought to chemicals in sunscreen, I also watched an exchange at a Congressional hearing.
Rep. Brandon Gill questioned an advocate from the Food Action and Research Center (FRAC) as to whether she thinks people should be permitted to use food stamps to buy sugary sodas. When the FRAC rep answered yes, and said that her interest was in people getting the food and nutrition they require to survive, Gill pressed her as to whether she really thinks people need sugary colas to survive. The woman would not answer that straight question.
The exchange, linked below, is worth watching to the end. It turns out her group is funded by industries that benefit from food stamps being used to buy junk food.
Years ago, I learned that when “experts” take positions that seem oddly recalcitrant when it comes to facts, evidence, or common sense, there’s usually a financial reason for it.
I learned that nearly every member of the national board of experts that lowered cholesterol guidelines (and basically recommended that people should take more statins) worked for the statin makers and had not originally disclosed that fact.
More recently, I discovered—and reported— that many members of a national board set up during Covid that restricted hydroxychloroquine... were paid by the companies that made other controversial treatments for Covid like remdesivir, that were then prioritized over hydroxychloroquine.
When the government and the cosmetics industry tried to falsely debunk the scientific studies linking antiperspirants to breast cancer, they referred me to the American Cancer Society for an interview. I learned that the expert doctor at the American Cancer Society hadn’t even read the relevant studies, and yet was claiming the link was a “myth.” I found out that the American Cancer Society takes money from the antiperspirant industry and other allegedly cancer- causing industries. However, they wouldn’t tell me how much.
When the nonprofit “Every Child By Two” was illogically denying the proven vaccine-autism link, I dug in and found out the nonprofit was actually started by a vaccine maker in order to defend vaccine companies, and to controversialize those of us exposing the risks.
I was the first journalist to ask and report that the “independent” expert the government kept referring us to in order to debunk the vaccine-autism link at a key moment when the controversy was being exposed, Dr. Paul Offit, was not an independent expert at all, but was a vaccine inventor and vaccine industry insider— though that was never disclosed in the media at the time. He was always presented falsely as if he were an independent expert.
When I saw a lead dietary group giving questionable advice about nutrition, I learned that the group takes money from the sugar, cola, fast food, and preservative snack industry.
The same can be said for the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and many more. I not only discovered conflicts every where I looked, I began to understand that sometimes, that was the story.
In short, whenever I’ve looked for a tie between experts defending a chemical or risk that could impact an industry’s bottom line... I’ve always found one.
Corporate and special interests have figured out how to play us, and we in the media have made it easy for them rather than doing our basic job.
On a related note, some years ago I was surprised to hear top editorial people at the New York Times make the argument for native advertising.
Native advertising is ads designed to masquerade as a news article. Publishers like the New York Times, The Atlantic, and others produce or host them through dedicated studios to generate revenue while keeping readers engaged longer. Critics note that it can deceive viewers and readers because they don’t know the source or the material. Audiences may treat promotional content as if it’s impartial reporting.
Controversy erupted in 2013 when The Atlantic published a native ad for the Church of Scientology that closely resembled a regular article. Labeled only with a small “Sponsor Content” banner, it portrayed the organization positively and faced immediate backlash for appearing to whitewash criticism.
Around the same time, top New York Times leaders embraced native advertising as a necessary revenue stream amid digital challenges. In December 2013, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. outlined plans for “native” ads in a letter to staff.
Native ads are supposed to come with labeling such as “sponsored” or “paid post,” but first of all, sometimes the disclosures are missing. Second of all, publishers know that readers and viewers often miss or ignore those disclosures. That’s by design, after all. If the sponsors wanted consumers to know the material is an ad, they wouldn’t work so hard to disguise it as a news article.
Food for thought.
By the way, here is some information returned online about the dermatologist on the news assuring us there’s no reason to consider any safety concerns with sunscreen:
Dr. Jody Levine has financial and professional relationships with several prominent consumer product companies that manufacture and market sunscreens.
Because sunscreen is legally regulated as an over-the-counter drug and is a core component of commercial skincare lines, her consulting roles inherently create potential conflicts of interest when she recommends sun protection or reviews skincare products in the media.
Her specific ties to major corporate sunscreen manufacturers include:
1. Johnson & Johnson / Kenvue
Dr. Levine has served on the Medical Advisory Board for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health spin-off, Kenvue, owns Neutrogena and Aveeno, two of the largest and most widely distributed sunscreen brands in the United States. In her media and print features, she has regularly recommended product categories or specific options overlapping with these brands, such as recommending Neutrogena Sport Face in broad consumer media interviews.
2. Galderma (Cetaphil)
She has acted as a consultant and advisor for Cetaphil, a brand owned by Galderma. Cetaphil produces a substantial line of daily facial moisturizers with SPF, mineral sunscreens, and broad-spectrum sun protection lotions marketed heavily toward sensitive skin and pediatric care.
3. Beiersdorf (Eucerin)
Dr. Levine has maintained consulting arrangements with Eucerin, a brand under the Beiersdorf corporate umbrella. Eucerin manufactures a wide range of daily anti-aging lotions with SPF, sensitive skin sunscreens, and body sun protection products.
Impact on Media Appearances
When Dr. Levine appears on networks like Fox News or in print publications to deliver general public health messages—such as advising viewers to apply sunscreen 15 minutes before going outside or warning against the dangers of tanning beds—she is providing standard medical advice aligned with the American Academy of Dermatology. However, because she does not routinely issue on-screen financial disclosures listing her corporate partners during short news segments, viewers are generally unaware that she is paid by the parent companies of the very products sitting on drugstore shelves that she is advocating for.
It’s always in the fine print and takes extra effort.
For example, WAY back when Obamacare was being passed, if you looked up the little doctors in white coats behind Obama or the doctors on the “news” pushing the bill, you’d find that many of them listed in their C.V. a “Soros Foundation Fellowship.” And this was before we realized that Soros minions were putting progressive DAs in cities across the country. 🤷
As the man said: “Trust no one. The truth is out there.”
This is extraordinary reporting. Thank you.