Editor's Note: Paul Kleyman, the esteemed Editor at The American Society of Aging, recently spoke about the news media's failure to report accurately on issues related to aging and its tendency to rely on tired stereotypes about older Americans. RedwoodAge.com is publishing his speech, delivered Dec. 13 to the Marin (California) Commission on Aging, with minimal editing as a special four-part series. We hope his viewpoints will help provide balance to other reporting on these critical issues. We welcome your comments, which may be entered below his remarks.

RedwoodAge.com

Some truly astonishing gains made by the human race are examined in detail by Dr. Robert Butler in his forthcoming book, "The Longevity Revolution," and I recommend that you look for it this spring.

Kleyman (ASA)

Dr. Butler, who was the founding director of the National Institute on Aging, is credited with coining the term ageism. Last year, Dr. Butler’s International Longevity Center in New York published a status report on ageism in America that shows how ageism runs deeper than the headlines.

Here is some of the bad news - news that should be good for reporters looking for high-impact stories to tell. 

In healthcare, for example, the "Journal of Gerontology" reported in 2002 that more than one-third of doctors surveyed believed that a marked increase in blood pressure is a normal part of aging instead of the often treatable medical condition it is. 

For decades, Dr. Butler has advocated for basic geriatric education for all medical students, so they know the difference between normal aging and treatable conditions. Yet, the US faces a looming shortage of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who understand geriatric care.

In 2005, Congress zeroed out money for geriatric training of new doctors. The total savings to taxpayers: $31.5 million, or about 32 seconds of the budget for the War in Iraq. The funding level for geriatric residencies and fellowships was partly restored the following year, but the government’s response is alarmingly short-sighted. 

According to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), in 2007, only 91 medical doctors who graduated from US medical schools entered geriatric medicine, merely a half-percent of all graduating medical students this year. In fact, because salaries for geriatricians is so low compared with other doctors -  partly because of low Medicare rates -  not all of the available training slots are filled. 

AGS says there are currently 7,128 certified geriatricians in the US -  one geriatrician for every 2,546 Americans 75 or older. Due to the projected increase in the number of older Americans, this ratio is expected to drop to one geriatrician for every 4,254 older Americans in 2030. That’s a 50 percent decline over the next 25 years.

Here’s another story the public has hardly heard: The Alliance for Aging Research found that even though older Americans are by far the biggest users of prescription drugs, 40 percent of clinical trials excluded people 75 or older. That was an analysis of data from the 1990s, but little has changed.

How about disaster preparedness? I was shocked last year to learn that the guidelines used internationally for first responders and other emergency personnel define “vulnerable” populations - those needing immediate attention - as: pregnant women and children. Period. Older people are not included. 

And, yet, in earthquakes, floods, heat waves and even man-made disasters like 9/11, seniors are among those most profoundly affected. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 60 percent of the people who died were age 60 or older, and that tragic group averaged older than age 70. 

This disaster scenario is beginning to change because of dedicated efforts by gerontologists at the nation’s academic Geriatric Education Centers -  even though their federal funding has been reduced -  since 9/11. 

In healthcare, housing, employment, transportation, education, community services -  just about in every sector of our society -  American culture is not ready for the longevity revolution -  and most families don’t even know we should be. 

So, where’s the information?

Because ageism is imbedded in the economic operating models of the media, the public is getting only a peripheral view of these issues, if not a seriously distorted perception, in much of the coverage.

In particular, I want to talk about the role of the news media and why the mainstream media continue to be bogged down -  even against its own best economic interests - in chasing after youth and doting on the 18-49 age demographic. 

Most of you know, I’m sure, that the 18-49 age bracket has been enshrined in the broadcast ratings since the 1950s -  with special emphasis on getting young adults ages 18-34. Also, what I call the younging-down of the media is going on in the newspapers and magazines. 

Of course, 18-49 thinking now excludes more than half of the boomers, who are 50-plus. [Boomers in 2008 will be 44-62.]

Let me give you an example of how the money talks in the media. Everyone knows about the ratings wars that happen during television’s “Sweeps Week.” People generally know that the ratings have to do with who has the biggest audience and will get the highest advertising revenue. 

But what few know is that a network or station can win its time slot or come close to it with big numbers, but lose revenue if a program attracts too many  viewers who don’t fit certain demographic profiles. The primary measure to determine how lucrative a program is - is age. 

Let me explain how this translates into dollars: Last spring the New York Times Magazine reported that the ABC network hit the jackpot with its youth-attracting show, "Lost." Last season a 30-second spot on the program reaped the network $328,000. 

But over at CBS, the same commercial shown during the engaging program "Criminal Minds," with only slightly fewer viewers overall -  but far fewer in the 18-34 group -  earned the network $143,000, or less than half of ABC’s take with "Lost."

I can cite you other examples, including cases in which the top audience draw couldn’t cash in its numbers against the young-adult competition. 

Well, that’s entertainment.

Next: Hopeful Signs in Media