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

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 03:06 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 03:23 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
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.  

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#33 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 04:33 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#34 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 05:34 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
kathymuggle likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#35 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

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

emmy526 is online now  
#36 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 06:09 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
That's a good point Emmy. The bias towards negative messages may be true for a lot of different topics not just vaccines.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#37 of 58 Old 04-07-2013, 11:28 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,008
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
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!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#38 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 04:55 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
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.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#39 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 05:47 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't think they're actually misinforming people.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#40 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 05:49 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#41 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 07:29 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It just isn't tho. The accurate title is 'CDC Researchers find that Autism Rates are not increased by too many Polysaccharides & Proteins (Antigens) too soon'

 

Is this a means/end discussion? Since Vaxes are super great, it is okay to distort information in the media if the end result is increased compliance in the public?

dinahx is offline  
#42 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 07:42 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Yours is more detailed but the headline as is is accurate. It's not ok to distort information, but that's not what's happening. You seriously think USA today is going to write a headline with the word polysaccharide in it?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#43 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 07:50 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)

Even "antigens" is going to be too much for a headline in a mainstream outlet! 

 

Headlines can be misleading, but that's true in so many areas.

 

 I think anyone who reads some kind of huge bias/conspiracy into the headlines of how studies related to immunizations are written may want to think about their own bias in how they read stuff on the internet. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#44 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 07:53 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

They could have used 'Antigen' in that beacon of Journalism. ;) Using 'vaccines' is inaccurate because there never ever has been a vaccine that was purely Antigen and the Adjuvants are also 'active ingredients'. But it wasn't just Saturday Morning Fluff like USA Today, it was 'respected' outlets like NPR, NBC, etc.

 

This is a subjective matter. I believe the Media systematically distorts vaccine information to increase vaccine compliance (from a gov angle) and increase pharma sales (from a Corporate angle). It isn't really far fetched, as most of these publications take AMPLE money from Pharma advertising AND the Gov does have an overt agenda of increasing compliance via the media as stated by Kathleen S. & others.

 

I mean we needn't even bring up the whole Brian Deer debacle for this, but I can go there if you want!

 

But it is fundamentally a subjective, opinion matter on which we can agree to disagree. I believe, based on *evidence* and college level writing classes and years of observation, that it is happening. You are entitled to believe that the media is reporting this issue accurately. But I will stand by the idea that the public is not coming away with accurate info . . . 

 

I mean the real question is: is it wrong to increase compliance by distorting information in the media. Are the people not smart enough to deserve informed consent? Or are they just too easily influenced on this issue, which is too important not to spin in a positive PR sort of way?

Mirzam, Marnica, BeckyBird and 2 others like this.
dinahx is offline  
#45 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 07:56 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,008
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
 I believe the Media systematically distorts vaccine information to increase vaccine compliance (from a gov angle) and increase pharma sales (from a Corporate angle). It isn't really far fetched, as most of these publications take AMPLE money from Pharma advertising AND the Gov does have an overt agenda of increasing compliance as stated by Kathleen S. & others.

 

Yes!

Mirzam likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#46 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 08:07 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Of course te wrong to distort information, but that's not what this is. Te study is about too many too soon AS QUANTIFIED BY ANTIGENS. I'm so sick of hearing about this. You have to quantify it somehow. This is one way. Is it perfect? No. Is it the only way? No. Is it a legitimate way? Yes. There is no one perfect study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#47 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 08:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 I think anyone who reads some kind of huge bias/conspiracy into the headlines of how studies related to immunizations are written....

Nice play of the conspiracy theorist card. You might sound more credible if you wait until someone does say something conspiracy worthy, instead of throwing that out because people are justifyably concerned over jumping-to-conclusion headlines.

 

It is reasonable to expect headlines that don't misinform.  I think the title writers are capable of it. 

 

Sloppy headlines hurt pro-vaxxing more than non-vaxxers, anyways.  How do you think people feel when the read a headline that says one thing and the text says another (and then the study says yet another)?  Distrustful, confused, cynical.  People rely on media to disseminate information - it would be useful if we could rely on them to do it properly.

Mirzam, Deborah, nia82 and 3 others like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#48 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#49 of 58 Old 04-08-2013, 09:08 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.

 

Yeah that was my point. I wasn't trying to play any cards.... 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#50 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 05:09 AM - Thread Starter
emmy526 is online now  
#51 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 05:54 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think most people find that headline a reasonable representation of the study.

I don't know how you could possibly know that or think that??? 

kathymuggle likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#52 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 10:16 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Marnica - I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#53 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 10:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,198
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.

 

 

There is no logical way Rachel can know if "most people find that representation a reasonable representation of the study"  (her words)

 

Has Rachel quizzed most people? Very highly doubtful.

 

It would even be a stretch to assume most people find the titles reasonable representation of the studies.  Both the antigen and twitter study have serious issues with their titles.  It would be like studying cornmeal in crackers and declaring crackers safe (never mind the other ingredients) or saying anti-ritz cracker sentiment was the same as anti-cracker sentiment….


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#54 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)

Actually, I think Rrrrrachel is correct, but not in the way she means.

 

Yes, "most people would find that headline a reasonable representation of the study," because most people would not bother to actually read the study.

 

Not even doctors read these studies.  They don't have time.  They read the headlines, the snippets (carefully) selected (i.e., cherry-picked) for them in their newsletters from the pharmaceutical industry, and from the pharma-funded continuing medical education journals.  It's very rare for them to even read the abstracts, because they simply don't have time.  

 

If I didn't know better, from my years of research, and from my having actually READ the study, I would have thought it was a reasonable representation of the study, too.

 

Thankfully, I bothered to read it, and I can see just how many lies are contained in that headline.  No matter what most people think.

 

There have been an awful lot of issues in history that "most people" found perfectly reasonable--until enough people fought back.  Luckily, enough of us are starting to fight back to counteract that destructive philosophy.

Taximom5 is online now  
#55 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Marnica - I think we have to agree here that we often find other people's views on these threads hard to understand, but we have to respect them anyway.

This has nothing to do with respecting Rrrrachel's views. She is free to feel however she wants to. I was responding to her assumption that "most people" feel a certain way about a newspaper headline. As Kathy pointed out - there is no logical way she could know that. That was my point. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#56 of 58 Old 04-12-2013, 02:44 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Wow. So many reactions to my saying what I THINK. Yet someone's statement about how headlines like this surely turn people against vaccination makes just as many assumptions, but doesn't get challenged. Interesting.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#57 of 58 Old 04-15-2013, 07:00 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Wow. So many reactions to my saying what I THINK. Yet someone's statement about how headlines like this surely turn people against vaccination makes just as many assumptions, but doesn't get challenged. Interesting.

I don't think it's the same at all - but ok


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#58 of 58 Old 04-15-2013, 02:56 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
You're right. Just two people drawing conclusions about what people might think based on a headline. Totally different. Not a bit the same. What was I thinking.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off