I took a small break this week from Ebola coverage and paid attention to the reporting of the measles outbreak in the U.S. While this outbreak isn't a full-fledged epidemic, I thought it would be useful to read and analyze some of the coverage because it is so close to home.
A New York Times article on Jan. 30 discussed the vaccination debate and included a California pediatrician who has urged parents to vaccinate their children and several parents who have not immunized their children. The headline was "Vaccine critics turn defensive over measles."
The story was reported from California, but included sources in Arizona as well. Some of the words and phrases that jumped out at me in this story were: anti-vaccine moment, public-health crisis, measles anxiety, scares, urging calm, public backlash, and alternatives. These words are compelling and catchy, and I think they will grab readers' attention. Measles is a serious public health threat, so I don't think the language is too strong. However, I would bet that in addition to getting people to think, some of this alarmist-type language and "us vs. them" language might have unsettled some readers.
The article includes many anti-vaccine voices, a doctor (the expert source), but in my opinion, doesn't include enough people who disagree with the anti-vaccine movement. The article included one mother who believes in vaccines for her own children, and is sympathetic to people who choose not to inoculate.
As of Feb. 7, this article has 2,278 comments. I read through a few dozen and found that many people were asking for a more nuanced discussion that included more complexity. The issue is not as black and white as people make it sound, many comments said. Some people were clearly pro-vaccine and used the terrible side effects of diseases such as polio, measles and whooping cough as examples of why people are stupid not to vaccinate. It was a generally respectful comment section, which is how the NYT tends to be, I think.
My own reaction to the article was that it did an excellent job of providing the statistics and explaining how the outbreak happened. It was framed for someone who needs to learn more about the anti-vaccine movement because it included many of those voices. I felt outrage at some of the quotes about how one mother would prefer her daughter miss six months of class to getting the measles vaccine. The infographic about how herd immunity works was also very good.
I also listened to some NPR coverage on the outbreak. One story discussed the situation a 6-year-old boy is facing in California. He is in remission from cancer and can't get the vaccine yet, so his parents are asking people to get vaccinated to protect their son. The other article discusses what lawmakers are doing in California about the low vaccination rates.
Both of these reports had an educational-type frame. They taught people about the vaccination rates, philosophical exemptions and how people are coping with the reality that the herd immunity threshold has not been met.
Generally, I think the frequency of the coverage was appropriate. The only media type I didn't check was broadcast. With more than 100 cases, the outbreak received much less coverage than Ebola did when it came to the U.S., so I think that's interesting. The coverage is also taking a public service- and education-type frame, which is great. It's teaching people about vaccines, coverage and what parents are doing. The word choice veers into alarmist in some cases, but I think that this illustrates the level of fear people have with this public health situation. I'd like more voices from the families who are dealing with measles and from the doctors. What are the long-term ramifications for people who contract measles?
A New York Times article on Jan. 30 discussed the vaccination debate and included a California pediatrician who has urged parents to vaccinate their children and several parents who have not immunized their children. The headline was "Vaccine critics turn defensive over measles."
The story was reported from California, but included sources in Arizona as well. Some of the words and phrases that jumped out at me in this story were: anti-vaccine moment, public-health crisis, measles anxiety, scares, urging calm, public backlash, and alternatives. These words are compelling and catchy, and I think they will grab readers' attention. Measles is a serious public health threat, so I don't think the language is too strong. However, I would bet that in addition to getting people to think, some of this alarmist-type language and "us vs. them" language might have unsettled some readers.
The article includes many anti-vaccine voices, a doctor (the expert source), but in my opinion, doesn't include enough people who disagree with the anti-vaccine movement. The article included one mother who believes in vaccines for her own children, and is sympathetic to people who choose not to inoculate.
As of Feb. 7, this article has 2,278 comments. I read through a few dozen and found that many people were asking for a more nuanced discussion that included more complexity. The issue is not as black and white as people make it sound, many comments said. Some people were clearly pro-vaccine and used the terrible side effects of diseases such as polio, measles and whooping cough as examples of why people are stupid not to vaccinate. It was a generally respectful comment section, which is how the NYT tends to be, I think.
My own reaction to the article was that it did an excellent job of providing the statistics and explaining how the outbreak happened. It was framed for someone who needs to learn more about the anti-vaccine movement because it included many of those voices. I felt outrage at some of the quotes about how one mother would prefer her daughter miss six months of class to getting the measles vaccine. The infographic about how herd immunity works was also very good.
I also listened to some NPR coverage on the outbreak. One story discussed the situation a 6-year-old boy is facing in California. He is in remission from cancer and can't get the vaccine yet, so his parents are asking people to get vaccinated to protect their son. The other article discusses what lawmakers are doing in California about the low vaccination rates.
Both of these reports had an educational-type frame. They taught people about the vaccination rates, philosophical exemptions and how people are coping with the reality that the herd immunity threshold has not been met.
Generally, I think the frequency of the coverage was appropriate. The only media type I didn't check was broadcast. With more than 100 cases, the outbreak received much less coverage than Ebola did when it came to the U.S., so I think that's interesting. The coverage is also taking a public service- and education-type frame, which is great. It's teaching people about vaccines, coverage and what parents are doing. The word choice veers into alarmist in some cases, but I think that this illustrates the level of fear people have with this public health situation. I'd like more voices from the families who are dealing with measles and from the doctors. What are the long-term ramifications for people who contract measles?
No comments:
Post a Comment