'The cold hard facts' immunisation and vaccine preventable diseases in Australia's newsprint media 1993-1998
The news media have the potential to influence public perceptions about childhood vaccination. Research has quantified the extent of positive news reportage on immunisation but no studies have explored the rhetorical nature and the core appeals that characterise positive reportage. To complement our previous research on the rhetorical nature of anti-immunisation reportage, this paper reviews positive coverage of immunisation in over four and a half years of Australian newsprint media. Three core topics dominated the reportage; the problem of vaccine preventable diseases and low immunisation rates, notions of who is responsible and the implied solutions. The threat of vaccine preventable diseases was conveyed using panic language, disease personification, quantification rhetoric, stories of personal tragedies and portentous tales from yesteryear. Attribution for low immunisation rates ranged from blaming parents to blaming lack of government coordination. However, most blame framed individuals as responsible. The most popular spokespersons were representatives of professional medical bodies who tended to be cast as voices of authority, castigating the ignorance and apathy of parents. Urging of compulsory vaccination, pleas for parents to immunise their children and the provision of information about vaccine preventable diseases were the most frequently occurring implied solutions. Immunisation was promoted as a modern medical miracle, health professionals were portrayed as soldiers in the fight against killer diseases and urges to immunise were usually conveyed through the use of stern directives. Understanding how immunisation messages are framed in the media and the core values to which those messages appeal highlights opportunities for media advocates to enhance desired messages and reframe those which are considered antipathetic to the goals of public health advocacy.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 54 (2002)
Issue (Month): 3 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:3:p:445-457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.