or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments - Page 2

post #21 of 58
Dinah I thought surely everyone loved the polio vax too. My time here at mothering ha taught me that is not the case.
post #22 of 58
Kathy that's kind of what the media does. Their job is too sell newspapers/generate clicks.
post #23 of 58

For me, the study just intensifies concerns I have about the social networking revolution.  It seems that the ideas that will spread the fastest regardless of topic matter are those that can be most effectively condensed to a meme or 140 character tweet.  I am just not sure that this is a good progression.  I have had people disagree with me on a topic claim that they have obviously researched this more than I have and then send me a Facebook post as evidence of their research.  Sound bites IMO aren't the greatest research, but they spread the fastest.

post #24 of 58

Sure . . . but it is also revolutionary in an old fashioned democratic sense of 'all the peoples can access the information'. I sure wouldn't like to go back to the time where a mother facing a cancer diagnosis couldn't connect to other mothers rapidly & share best practices, etc.

 

The internet is the whole reason any of us are even entitled to have these discussions here, which otherwise we would be largely locked out of because of our role in the home. My grandma couldn't just park her little ones and go to the library!

 

I am a huge fan of democracy & self determination, so I almost always see increased access to information and rapid dissemination as positive. They say there are three things you can't hide: the Sun, the Moon & the Truth. Traditional Media is not helping people truly understand Vax issues, so non-traditional media is bound to step in . . . Maybe NPR & friends could respond by treating this topic more as complex (which it is) and less as 'do it, it is good for you, gov says!'

 

But in any case, whenever I see ProVax messages on Twitter, they seem to have TONS of Retweets & Favorites, so this may be a little of 'playing the victim' to get that 'our opinion is persecuted and minority' ferver going in their community.

post #25 of 58

I don't necessarily discount new sources of information, either. I will bet anyone on here a Kombucha that the next Outbreak can be found on Twitter FIRST. Even NPR, a lot of times will be all like 'Today on Twitter . . . ', it just now does move faster than the news . . .

 

I remember a tounge in cheek conversation a few years ago with my ExBF who is an Ivy League Librarian. I said some fact and he was like 'did you get that from Wikipedia?' I was like, 'Naw, I heard it on Facebook Homie!' We were both kidding and wound up in stitches (altho that particular factoid really did come from FB) . . . I am however, friends with TONS of MDs on Facebook, and RNs and CNMs and even a few CPMs . . . Oh and EMTs and Paramedics & PhDs . . .

 

So it actually may happen that someone I know posts something very worthwhile there . . . Just today, I had help making a medical decision from two MDs on my Facebook & then an MD's article on HuffPo . . . (The decision was Folic Acid vs. Folate vs. MethylFolate)

 

So I am saying, I am a voracious consumer of info and I will pick it up anywhere & everywhere. I go to primary sources a LOT and there is a lot of 'telephone' type distortion, for sure . . .

post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

For me, the study just intensifies concerns I have about the social networking revolution.  It seems that the ideas that will spread the fastest regardless of topic matter are those that can be most effectively condensed to a meme or 140 character tweet.  I am just not sure that this is a good progression.  I have had people disagree with me on a topic claim that they have obviously researched this more than I have and then send me a Facebook post as evidence of their research.  Sound bites IMO aren't the greatest research, but they spread the fastest.

Yeah so much misinformation of all kinds gets posted over and over and over.
post #27 of 58
It's just a method of communicating. The information content is as good or as poor as the people make it.

Still I am curious about what spreads socially. I wonder if there's an aspect of "this is something which isn't the common knowledge" which interests people to retweet/spread it.

I'd like to see them do it for more vaccine questions, but also other areas where there's a mainstream view and a fringe "did you know" (correct or not - actually I'd be interested in how both spread).

Like I said anyway, fascinating link. Thanks for posting it.
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy that's kind of what the media does. Their job is too sell newspapers/generate clicks.

Uh, yeah.  I know.

 

I wanted to see whether it was the media inflating things or if the authors of the study inflated things (something we have seen in other studies) - and I have my answer.  

post #29 of 58
It just seems like there have been a lot of noses out of joint lately over headlines that don't contain every detail of a study, which I find a little eyebrow raising.
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It just seems like there have been a lot of noses out of joint lately over headlines that don't contain every detail of a study, which I find a little eyebrow raising.

I think it is legitimate.  These are the stories fed to the public.  Not everybody wants to, has time to, or knows to go digging for further details. 

post #31 of 58
So headlines should be like four pages long? That seems reasonable to you?

It's not just vaccines, it's literally every news story on every topic. Where is this expectation that the headline should tell the whole story coming from and how in the world do people consider it reasonable?
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So headlines should be like four pages long? That seems reasonable to you?
Proposed headlines:
Non-vax tweets on the h1N1 vaccines spread more readily that pro-vax tweets on the h1n1 vaccine
Negative messages about the H1N1 vaccine twitted more than positive messages about H1N1 vaccine
Tweets - did messages pro or con h1n1 vaccines spread more readily? 
_____________________
I have faith they can make a truthful and catchy headline that is an acceptable length.  I find the title of the article the Op cited pretty long.  I doubt length is a common reason for jumping-to-conclusion titles.  
 
 
It's not just vaccines, it's literally every news story on every topic. Where is this expectation that the headline should tell the whole story coming from and how in the world do people consider it reasonable?
I just noticed it with the antigen study and this piece.  If there have been other places people have been criticizing titles lately, it is news to me.   Accountability in journalism is  a good thing.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 4/7/13 at 3:46pm
post #33 of 58
Those headlines are not at all catchy.

Journalists are accountable for their work. Often the same person who writes the article doesn't write the headline. People who want to be informed can take the extra two minutes and read teh article.
post #34 of 58
Right it is just an accident that the Headlines are more overtly Pro than the studies. How about this title:

Messages Critical of H1N1 Vax found to spread More Rapdily on Twitter. Accurate, reflects the truth, appropriately brief.
post #35 of 58
Thread Starter 

I think any media article that is in negative light is going to generate more response than an article of mediocre or focusing on positive newsworthy items.. so, it shouldn't be any surprise that negative tweets about vaccination get more attention either...not many people tweet, "gee my child made it thru her vaccines like a champ with no brain damage or seizures"   whereas, a tweet which says, "my 2mo old screamed for two days after her vaccines and had to be hospitalized"  generates a more emotional response from people.  The news generally preys on people's fears, not their achievements, and i would think twitter is the same

post #36 of 58
That's a good point Emmy. The bias towards negative messages may be true for a lot of different topics not just vaccines.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I think it is legitimate.  These are the stories fed to the public.  Not everybody wants to, has time to, or knows to go digging for further details. 


You mean when they see headlines like this: "Study: Autism risk not increased by too many vaccines too soon."

Loads of the headline from various news sources https://www.google.com/search?q=Study%3A+Autism+risk+not+increased+by+too+many+vaccines+too+soon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

 

PHOENIX -- A new study adds to years of research showing that childhood vaccines do not cause autism, despite worries among a growing number of parents that their young children receive "too many vaccines."

Well, there you have it. Case closed. People who still believe the media is accurate will parrot this info, without looking any further.

 

Fun Fact--Did you know it is "technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast"?  Hmmm. Outrage appropriate!

post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post



Journalists are accountable for their work. Often the same person who writes the article doesn't write the headline. People who want to be informed can take the extra two minutes and read teh article.

I think it is is funny you are defending titles that misinform people.

 

Don't pro-vaxxers often go on and on about the sins of misinformation?  To then defend a sloppy title that jumps to conclusion seems odd.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/8/13 at 5:20am
post #39 of 58
I don't think they're actually misinforming people.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


You mean when they see headlines like this: "Study: Autism risk not increased by too many vaccines too soon."
Loads of the headline from various news sources https://www.google.com/search?q=Study%3A+Autism+risk+not+increased+by+too+many+vaccines+too+soon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

PHOENIX -- A new study adds to years of research showing that childhood vaccines do not cause autism, despite worries among a growing number of parents that their young children receive "too many vaccines."
Well, there you have it. Case closed. People who still believe the media is accurate will parrot this info, without looking any further.

Fun Fact--Did you know it is "technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast"?  Hmmm. Outrage appropriate!

That's a completely accurate representation of that study.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › On Twitter, Anti-Vaccination Sentiments Spread More Easily Than Pro-Vaccination Sentiments