You’re absolutely right.

I’m responsible for the UNC Health Care System’s news strategy.

We are doing precisely what you propose in your next-to-last paragraph. We use blogs, YouTube and Twitter to respond to breaking news (most famously about fruit flies). We had a Web cam interview about an important arthritis research paper up, on YouTube, within hours of the embargo’s lifting. We had a Flip cam interview of our dean/CEO (he worked in two presidential administrations; he’s a legitimate source) responding to Obama’s press conference. We’re preparing video packages for embargoed material.

Why? Mostly because there are too few reporters to cover our news.

I was a newspaper reporter. It’s painful to see the industry crumble. But let’s face reality and get on with the news.

In medicine and science media relations we face an especially difficult dilemma. Academic researchers (clinical and basic) create the news — discovering new therapies, influencing policy — with federal and state money, largely. We have a responsibility to report the outcomes. But medicine and science are among the beats that have been most badly chopped (CNN’s cutting it’s science desk, for example). So we report the news.

Of course we have a bias. So do news media (in your 4th graph). Academic PR people need to adopt more journalistic standards — asking tough questions, including objective (or at least removed) sources. We’re starting to do that.

Still, we draw the ire of “real” reporters.

One reporter recently argued that we’re not pitching her great stories. Back in the day, say, 2000, 2001, reporters didn’t wait to be pitched, they worked their beats.

We do, and we report it here: unchealthcare.wordpress.com, uncsom.wordpress.com, YouTube.com/uncmedicine and Twitter.com/unc_health_care.