Whooping cough vaccination: the case presented by the British national press.
The coverage of whooping cough and its vaccine by the British press was content-analysed and compared with that of four other diseases for which articles were relatively common over the same time period. The results indicated that the topics were dealt with differently by the press, with whooping cough vaccination being seen as more risky than the others, requiring both medical advice and a decision before being accepted. The rather negative attitude to this vaccine emphasizes the problems associated with it rather than its preventive qualities. There was little evidence of a balanced discussion of the issues found in the medical literature, although accusations against the lay-press for providing largely inaccurate and sensationalized articles were found to be unsupported. The press were found, however, to publish many event-orientated articles, particularly those about specific individuals.
D004168:Diphtheria Toxoid / Q000494:pharmacology; D006561:Herpes Simplex / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D009524:Newspapers as Topic; D010567:Pertussis Vaccine / Q000009:adverse effects*; D011054:Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated / Q000494:pharmacology; D018570:Risk Assessment; D014435:Typhoid Fever / Q000517:prevention & control; D006113:United Kingdom; D014612:Vaccines / Q000494:pharmacology
D004168:Diphtheria Toxoid; D010567:Pertussis Vaccine; D011054:Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; D014612:Vaccines