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
posted by Ryan @ 9:43 a.m.
12 comments
12 Comments:
Fear sells, guy. Just look at CNN.
Yeah, the question is: how do we get people stop responding to it? If only more people would shun these issues and teach the media outlets a lesson - alas, easier said than done.
I could go on a rant that could fill novels but I'll leave you with this:
I'm very disappointed in this article. I just don't think this will ever go away, particularly because the media does nothing but foster this myth. I recently saw Jenny McCarthy on CNN ranting about how her child got autism because of a vaccination. Despite having a scientist on the show refuting this, she shouted him down with nonsensical arguments, thus appealing to the emotional turmoil that many parents are experiencing due to this issue. And people will ultimately think with their emotions in this case and articles such as this will only fan the flames.
I personally side with McCarthy on this one, solely because she has a great rack.
Are you all working for the pharmaceutical companies? It is hard to believe that such a misguided collection of know-nothings could have come together by chance.
You don't need science or scientific studies to know that it is harmful to inject newborns with aluminum, mercury (still in the flu vaccines), monosodium glutamate, genetically modified viruses, and a host of other toxic substances. Moreover the justifications for many vaccines are non-existent. Did any of you ever wonder why the CDC recommends the tetanus vaccine for babies that cannot get tetanus? How about the Hep B vaccine for babies born to mothers without Hep B?
I don't believe you and I don't believe you are real. You must be pharmaceutical company shills.
Dr Fox,
You're right. The entire medical industry is a gigantic conspiracy to make you spend money. I am a highly paid guerrilla marketing guru who runs hundreds of such blogs, all designed to promote the Big Med agenda.
Lately, however, I've been thinking of getting into a more lucrative business: the manufacture and sales of aluminum foil hats, which will prevent the government from reading your brain waves. Can I intest you in such a valuable device? Methinks, with your love of conspiracy theories and your disdain for science, you would be the ideal candidate to make such a purchase.
Failing that, I would like to sell you small baby-sized coffins, as you will almost certainly be needing some of those.
I would encourage you to take part in the ongoing discussion by posting articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals to back up your points. Since no such articles exist, you're welcome to attempt to draft some yourself, once you have obtained suitable education from a reputable college or university.
However, as you have concluded that "science" is no match for your gut instinct, I am concerned that no academic institution would accept you as a student.
Further, it is rather hypocritical to accuse someone of being a pharmaceutical company shill when you falsely assume the title of "Doctor". Unless of course you are a Doctor, in which case I'd ask you to post your full name and board of medicine, so that we can take the appropriate steps to have your practice revoked. No one actively campaigning against vaccines should be allowed to practice medicine.
Mister, I would like to buy your hats. Do you have some in 7-3/8"?
For you, I'll even put the Detroit Tigers logo on it.
You're a good man, despite what all the graffiti around Toronto says.
But, if I may be serious for a moment... it's amazing how a tiny piece of terrible journalism, riddled with mistakes, can completely turn around the public discourse on a given subject -- if it's well-enough placed.
I mean, ever since Fox did that silly documentary on how the moon landings were apparently faked, there are many more people now that would believe a whisper of, "Oh, I saw it on TV how the moon landings were faked," rather than the mountains of evidence that it wasn't.
One poorly-written article, one documentary on a ridiculous TV network... it really doesn't take much. Public Opinion is a fickle mistress.
What was it that Churchill said? Something along the lines of the greatest argument against democracy is a 5-minute-long conversation with the average voter...?
I particularly enjoyed the Onion story in which al-Qaida criticizes the conspiracy theorists for claiming they did not carry out 9/11 - particularly as this ACTUALLY HAPPENED shortly thereafter.
Onion story:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories
Actual story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/7361414.stm
I can't wait to read the Time Magazine article for myself!
Can it be true? A major "mainstream" paper actually says something that will NOT sit well with Big Pharma? What a change that would be!
Babies are dying or being left with epilepsy, paralysis, and other nerve damage -- all over the world from unsafe vaccines. Not every child, but FAR TOO MANY!
Vaccines are unsafe and unnecessary! With the FDA and CDC allowing Big Pharma to distort their studies, with all the conflicts of interest, with the mountains of evidence PROVING vaccines often cause SERIOUS harm or death... Kudos to Time Magazine (if indeed the article does question the safety & efficacy of vaccines)
For more info read "A Shot in the Dark..." by medical historian Harris Coulter - proof that the early studies were altered, skewed, lied about etc.
See also "Are Vaccines Really Safe & Effective" By Neil Miller. Very clear evidence that vaccines were NOT the cause of diseases going away. Perhaps it was hygiene, but those diseases were disappearing BEFORE mass vaccinations started - and also disappearing in other countries like Britain where they NEVER HAD mass vaccinations.
Learn, read, become informed. Then if you choose to vaccinate at least you will be doing so with Informed Consent and not based on Big Pharma propaganda.
Anonymous,
I am curious why you did not cite work by someone perhaps more respected in the field, such as a medical doctor, immunology, phramacologist or other medical specialist. Harris Coulter is a medical historian - as such, I would question his ability to dispense medical treatment. You may feel comfortable with heeding his opinion on such matters, but I receive medical treatment from doctors, and not medical historians.
Similarly, Neil Miller is a medical research journalist with a degree (not a doctorate, a degree) in Psychology.
You make a lot of assertions in your post - that babies are dying from unsafe vaccines, that these diseases were disappearing prior to vaccines, and that there are "mountains of evidence" to support your theories.
Do you have any medical research that backs up these claims? I would imagine that the books you mentioned would contain citations to such studies. If you are going to make such claims, I'd suggest backing them up with the appropriate academic articles.
I can understand why people are concerned about being forced to vaccinate their children, as this is an issue of civil liberty. However, I believe that the risk of harm from vaccines is negligible compared to the risk of the diseases that vaccinations prevent. As such, I believe vaccines should be mandatory in Canada for the good of society.
Those who are not in favour are welcome to take up the matter with their elected official. And if they still don't like it, they are welcome to move to a country without mandatory vaccinations - though if you can find such a country that has a higher life expectancy than Canada, I'll be very surprised.
Post a Comment
<< Home