I'm not saying anything of the sort, especially since this is a vax support forum. As someone who works in publishing (not journalism) the idea of freedom of speech and censorship is near and dear to my heart, perhaps as much as the anti-vax agenda vaccine choice is to others. Freedom of speech is not being infringed and no one is being censored when a media outlet chooses not to cover what someone wishes they would.
Fixed it for you.
I suppose the bottom line is they are a private enterprise and they can print whatever they want, as long as they do not break laws.
There is, however, a tendency among pro-vaxxers to want to control the message that publishers publish. They claim that non-vaxxing is wrong and should not be given equal weight in the media. This is a blurb from science-based medicinehttp://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-fallacy-of-balance-and-fairness-about-unscientific-health-claims-in-the-media-a-case-study/ (skip if you are not in the mood for a skeptic site)
"But the thing that most prevents the scientifically accurate evaluation by the media of unscientific health claims has to be the “tell both sides” culture of “balance” demanded by journalists. Telling both sides is, of course, very important when one side is not obviously correct compared to the other. Examples of such a situation include virtually any political controversy, where there almost always are two (and usually more) sides to an issue. In contrast, in science and medicine, there are not always two sides to an issue. (Again, think of creationism versus evolution.) In science and medicine, there is often a side supported so overwhelmingly by evidence, experimentation, and observation that the “other side” does not warrant being told, as it has already been considered and rejected by science."
This is a sentiment I have seen echoed elsewhere in the pro-vax world.
So, yeah, a private enterprise should be able to publish what it wants. A group lobbying them to not include some information because they do not like it or deem it "wrong" is advocating censorship. It would be an even worse sin if the publisher gave into lobby group demands.
Edited by kathymuggle - 1/22/13 at 8:10am