Sabotaging public engagement with science: Missing scientific principles in newspaper stories about the Wakefield MMR-Autism controversy
This study examines numbers of stories published about the MMR-autism controversy – and frames those stories employed — by The Times of London and The Daily Mail from 1998-2011. Statistically significant correlations were found between total numbers of related stories published by all newspapers indexed by LexisNexis (1998-2011) and numbers of measles cases. During the timeframe examined, The Times of London published 134 stories on the controversy; The Daily Mail, 209. The two newspapers emphasized different frames. The Times stressed, among others, scientific support for vaccine safety; danger of leaving children unvaccinated; media irres - ponsibility; parents’ poor science literacy, irrationality and emotionalism; debunking vaccine danger claims; and failures in the peer review process by the scholarly journal publishing Wakefield’s research. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, featured frames including competing views of scientific issues; government greed, power mongering, and untrustworthiness; arrogance and lack of approachability of most physicians; and Wakefield as responsive and caring victim of a government witch hunt. Neither paper explained scientific principles sufficiently to make informed decisions about MMR safety or to facilitate public engagement with the debate.
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): (2012)
Issue (Month): 3-4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
|Order Information:|| Postal: Editura Ars Docendi, Sos. Panduri 94, sector 5, Bucuresti, Romania – for print copies|
Web: http://www.jurnalism-comunicare.eu/rrjc/ Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:foj:journl:y:2012:i:3-4:p:79-93. 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: (Raluca Radu)
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.