or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Katie Couric admits disproportionate reporting on HPV vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Katie Couric admits disproportionate reporting on HPV vaccine - Page 2

post #21 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

 

That said her current show isn't a news show.  It is a talk show.  I don't think she owes an obligation for balance anymore than Maury Povich does. I am glad she is acknowledging it though.

 

To be fair, she is also a journalist and does do news segments and is a " special correspondent for ABC News, contributing to ABC World NewsNightline20/20Good Morning AmericaThis Week and primetime news specials. She has anchored the CBS Evening News,reported for 60 Minutes, and hosted Today and reported for Dateline NBC. " 

 

I don't really think it's fair to compare her potential influence to that of Maury Povich.  

 

Having said that, I was never trying to argue that she should *have* to apologize. I mean, it shouldn't be a law. Legally she should be able to say whatever she wants.  But there is a code of ethics in journalism and if she was really trying to "show both sides" then she should have had mothers whose daughters have died from cervical cancer on the show as well, and spent more than 5 minutes at the very end of the show talking to a doctor. I think it was really irresponsible reporting, and am glad she acknowledged it, too. 

post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

To be fair, she is also a journalist and does do news segments and is a " special correspondent for ABC News, contributing to ABC World NewsNightline20/20Good Morning AmericaThis Week and primetime news specials. She has anchored the CBS Evening News,reported for 60 Minutes, and hosted Today and reported for Dateline NBC. " 

 

I don't really think it's fair to compare her potential influence to that of Maury Povich.  

 

Having said that, I was never trying to argue that she should *have* to apologize. I mean, it shouldn't be a law. Legally she should be able to say whatever she wants.  But there is a code of ethics in journalism and if she was really trying to "show both sides" then she should have had mothers whose daughters have died from cervical cancer on the show as well, and spent more than 5 minutes at the very end of the show talking to a doctor. I think it was really irresponsible reporting, and am glad she acknowledged it, too. 

you are missing the point - regardless what ELSE she does at other times, this is a "talk" show, not a news show

post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

Median is only helpful for me if I also know the age range of the viewership the median is based on.  Without it it really doesn't tell us anything about potential influence.  Consider the following two groups of viewer ages

 

Group A: 20 years, 25 years, 30years, 32years, 33 years, 60.8 years, 61 years, 61 years, 61 years, 61 years ,61 years

 

Group B: 56 years,57 years , 58 years ,59 years ,60 years, 60.8years ,65 years ,70 years,75 years,80 years,85 years

 

Both groups have a median age of 60.8.  However group A with a Mean/average age of 45.98 is clearly going to have more influence on a vaccine age considering 50% of the viewership is in the prime age range for making these decision compared to group B with an average age of 65.98 and 0% in the age range.

 

Research on age demos would be more important than a median age without a range of age values.

 

 

That said her current show isn't a news show.  It is a talk show.  I don't think she owes an obligation for balance anymore than Maury Povich does. I am glad she is acknowledging it though.

the median age of mothers in the US is 25, add 11 years (age they say is best to start the vaccine) and you get 36 -even if you go at the high end of 35 for the mother, it's still not the target group that watches her talk show

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/05/06/the-new-demography-of-american-motherhood/

 

if you look at any of the targeting (and the studies) that is being done for the undecided parent, they still are primarily saying the main impact is coming from physician pressure, they even are having women who have had HPV not want to give the vaccine - this "talk" show will blow over so quickly

 

frankly the PRO side really isn't doing themselves any favor going after this, she's still a darling with girls of her own, it's drawing attention and thus more will question it :bgbounce I see keep this madness up!

post #24 of 31

The median age of motherhood also doesn't tell us anything about Katie Couric's potential influence.  It has nothing to do with the target group that watches Katie's SHow.  What I am saying is we have no idea what the viewership of Katie's show is from the Median age unless we also know the age range from which that Median is drawn.  To know the potential you would need to know The size of the 25-54 female demographic (which is the age range that would be facing this decision) that watches daytime television, and the percentage of that demographic that watches Katie Couric as opposed to other shows.

 

I am not exactly sure what the Pro-vaccine side is exactly supposed to be "going after" here?  I really don't think that discussing statistics in television viewership is going to make anyone question vaccines because that makes zero sense to me.  I don't understand how that is madness, diving into statistical details seems more like research to me and basing a health decision off of love of a television personality with cute children  seems more like madness.

 

I think that when she is doing news stories for 20/20 etc.  she owes her viewership journalistic integrity just like the news but when on her talk show it is more of an editorial format.  That said I really hope no one bases their health decisions off of any media personality at all regardless of what their opinion is.

post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

The median age of motherhood also doesn't tell us anything about Katie Couric's potential influence.  It has nothing to do with the target group that watches Katie's SHow.  What I am saying is we have no idea what the viewership of Katie's show is from the Median age unless we also know the age range from which that Median is drawn.  To know the potential you would need to know The size of the 25-54 female demographic (which is the age range that would be facing this decision) that watches daytime television, and the percentage of that demographic that watches Katie Couric as opposed to other shows.

 

I am not exactly sure what the Pro-vaccine side is exactly supposed to be "going after" here?  I really don't think that discussing statistics in television viewership is going to make anyone question vaccines because that makes zero sense to me.  I don't understand how that is madness, diving into statistical details seems more like research to me and basing a health decision off of love of a television personality with cute children  seems more like madness.

 

I think that when she is doing news stories for 20/20 etc.  she owes her viewership journalistic integrity just like the news but when on her talk show it is more of an editorial format.  That said I really hope no one bases their health decisions off of any media personality at all regardless of what their opinion is.

I think it's just so crazy! I have no idea why a PRO vaccine person would want so much news attention drawn to this- but please keep it going, more and more people can talk about it and yes, question it too!

 

It's real simple - those who watch her show are not the prime group who will make the decision and that same group also looks at MANY sources when they make any decisions - saying she has this influence over them is not accurate, it's laughable.

 

Going after her as is if this a hard core news show and how dare she because-gasp! she is a journalist doing a "talk show" also IMO is just as nutty! Don't like her message so attack her - never mind that no matter if she said it or someone else, or it not even being said, this vaccines is not going over in general with the parents it's designed to impress. Keep it in the news and keep drawing more attention to it!!!!!!!!

post #26 of 31

1.)  No one has attacked Katie Couric in this thread.

 

2.) It isn't simple.  We have no idea if the people who watch Katie Couric's show are the  making decisions on HPV vaccines!  That is what all of my posts have been clearly demonstrating.  We know the age group of those making a decision on HPV (mothers of 11-18 year old females so around  women 36-54).  But we do not have enough information on Katie Couric viewership to draw inference into whether or not they are the prime audience of Katie Couric.  As I have said repeatedly a median age without the age range from which that median is taken doesn't provide enough information.

post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

1.)  No one has attacked Katie Couric in this thread.

 

 

 

  Hmmm…perhaps not on this thread, but many pro-vax sites are having a jolly-good ranty time.  Serenbat's point is correct - the hyper focus on the Couric segment might make more people aware there is an HPV issue and question it (if it does anything at all).


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/13/13 at 5:22am
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
 

1.)  No one has attacked Katie Couric in this thread. yes, it's just been one big love fest and all flattery-no condemnation on her journalist integrity & responsibility, I must have been reading something else!

 

2.) It isn't simple.  We have no idea if the people who watch Katie Couric's show are the  making decisions on HPV vaccines!  That is what all of my posts have been clearly demonstrating.  We know the age group of those making a decision on HPV (mothers of 11-18 year old females so around  women 36-54).  But we do not have enough information on Katie Couric viewership to draw inference into whether or not they are the prime audience of Katie Couric.  As I have said repeatedly a median age without the age range from which that median is taken doesn't provide enough information. here this one might help you better - http://nypost.com/2013/12/01/katie-courics-demographic-might-not-make-it-to-yahoo/ As the website Mashable pointed out last week, Couric’s ABC daytime show, “Katie,” has attracted an average of roughly 2.2 million viewers; further, the average age of her audience is about 61, a demographic that isn’t widely known to be tied to the Internet.

if a non "journalist" would have done a PRO story on HPV I'm sure the PRO side would be pushing for that person to get a Pulitzer 

post #29 of 31

To those who yearn for a code of ethics within the media, please read this,

Quote:
 the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation"

Meaning, news media outlets are not legally obligated to tell the truth......in other words, they can lie and there is no law against it! If you would like to read more about the court case, the ruling, and how FOX lied and got away with it, here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

 

I am wondering why the Katie Couric show was allowed to air this segment in the first place? A show requires a lot of work from many different people, so this was no accident. They had to know there would be extreme backlash---remember what happened to presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann? As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any person who can get away with saying anything bad about vaccines, and this now includes TV's darling Katie Couric.

post #30 of 31
Well what if we were to apply this ethic to other situations, like the amount of time the ProChoice movement spends telling Fetal Anomaly termination tales, when these are a tiny, fractional percentage of late term procedures? Or the amount if time the media spends on Stranger Abduction, when almost all abductions are by relatives?
post #31 of 31
Well, if I were considering Gardasil for my kids, the comments alone would deter me.

Post after post from families of girls who reported nearly identical reactions. Some died. Most have long-term disabilities. Many have made their medical records public in hopes of drawing attention to these reactions.

There are also posts of studies indicating the possibility of major, unanticipated problems with Gardasil.

Post after post from obvious trolls and shills, insisting that the shots are perfectly safe, demeaning the victims, their families, and pretty much anyone questioning safety.

Many of those posts are so nasty, I wonder if some of these shills are having second thoughts about Gardasil themselves, and are being outrageous on purpose to dissuade people from considering Gardasil.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Katie Couric admits disproportionate reporting on HPV vaccine