Time Magazine: Another Cog in the Controversy Factory
I read a lot of news from many different sources. One of those sources is Time Magazine, which I consider to be more of a "big picture" news outlet. They may not be the most cerebral of publications, but I consider them to be reasonably respectable and a good place to look when I'm more interested in broad strokes than specifics. That is, until they seemingly succumbed to the epidemic of yellow journalism.
Let us take their current issue, which features an article on children's vaccines. Let's start with a look at that cover. First, there's "The Truth About Vaccines" in gigantic letters. Also, don't forget the scary, giant-ass needle and a frightened looking baby.
Just looking at this cover (even from a distance), what impression are you left with? Well, I can tell you what impression you're not left with - that vaccines are virtually certain to protect the health of your child. No matter how many subscribers Time may have, I can guarantee that it is a mere fraction of the number of people who will merely glance at this cover and walk away with a misguided impression of vaccines.
"Surely," you say, "The article itself must be a well-balanced piece of journalism." And the answer: No.
There are simply far too many phrases that stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy, including: "When the immune system of a baby or young child is just coming online, is it such a good idea to challenge it with antigens to so many bugs?", "Have the safety, efficacy and side effects of this flood of inoculations really been worked through?" and "Since the 1980s, the number of vaccinations children receive has doubled, and in that same time, autism diagnoses have soared threefold." Only rather belatedly does Time acknowledge that, "In 2003, a 15-person committee impaneled by the CDC and the National Institutes of Health analyzed the available studies on thimerosal and its possible connections to autism and concluded that there was no scientific evidence to support the link." That's yellow journalism at its finest.
So, whether you simply glance at the cover or actually read the article, odds are good that a significant number of people are going to have a misguided view of vaccines as a result of this article. Some of these people have children or will have children that will require vaccines. Some of these people are going to seriously question whether they should allow their children to be vaccinated. And I think we all know what happens to unvaccinated children when the come into contact with the diseases they were supposed to be vaccinated against.
Thanks, Time. Was selling a couple of issues worth the cost of spreading the myth of unsafe vaccines? Certainly, no such article can be explained by journalistic merit. If a single document case of vaccine-related health problems deserves a feature article, Time's next cover should read: "Death by Meteorite: Is it safe to leave your house?"
Labels: commentary, journalism, Time, vaccines