Arrthy Thayaparan

The Wakefield study, now redacted and denounced by the scientific community, continues to affect public trust in vaccines, medical research, and the media. 

“Flu Vaccination Grippe” by Daniel Paquet is licensed under CC BY 2.0

In 1998 a British medical journal, The Lancet, published a research paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and 12 coauthors claiming that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was the trigger to autism in at-risk children. The paper concluded that the combination vaccine could be linked with the development of gastrointestinal disease and autism. The ensuing media frenzy resulted in dissemination of the study to a global audience leading to a decline of MMR vaccinations and increase of measles outbreaks in not only the United Kingdom (UK), but also in countries like the United States (US) and Canada. In most recent years, regardless of having been redacted and denounced by the scientific community, this study is utilized by the anti-vaxxer community to substantiate their claims that vaccines are not safe. By comparing the reports of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) and The Telegraph, an interesting narrative emerges of how the media’s framing of Wakefield’s study may be the reason for continued misunderstanding in the effects of vaccine medication.

Story Timeline

When the study was first published, the media helped disseminate the findings to a global audience stating Wakefield’s recommendation of single vaccines rather than the combination vaccines, like the MMR. For parent’s with autistic children, this study was the holy grail. Since then and until now, scientists and doctors still haven’t found a direct causation of autism. Though science and medicine has expanded immensely, autism to this very day remains a mystery. As such, for desperate parents trying to find a reason for their child’s medical condition, the Wakefield study provided them a cause and an answer. 

Even though Wakefield had not recommended a total ban on vaccines, the study had developed a fear in regular citizens. If this one vaccine could cause something as drastic as autism, then what could other vaccines do? This thinking led to a significant drop in vaccinations and a risk of disease outbreaks.

As a result of rising worries over a measles outbreak, the scientific community revisited and replicated the original study conducted by Wakefield, only to find that the results could not be reproduced and discovered an array of ethical issues with the original study. As such, the media began to diverge in their reporting at this point in time. Some began to report only scientifically proven facts, some sided entirely with Wakefield, and some attempted to report the situation from both sides, but in the end the damage had been done. 

 The Wakefield study was inevitably retracted by The Lancet and various ethical issues, from misconduct to selection of evidence, resulted in a ban on Wakefield’s medical license in the UK. But still, this story has been brought up by the media several times in the past 20 years. From the realization and backlash of the scientific community against the unethical and falsehoods published in the original paper to the growth of the anti-vaxxer community, this single study has and continues to impact how science is viewed by the public.

Where Did The Media Go Wrong?

While scouring the internet looking for archived reports of this story, it was interesting to notice that many news organizations no longer had any articles or archived newscasts from when the research article was first published. Links that seemed likely to lead to the first reports resulted in “Page not found” messages. This continual (and to be frank very frustrating) pattern begs to question whether news organizations have erased the original stories completely off of their sites? 

Example of error page from link to initial article on the study

While it must be considered that the writer of this blog post could be incapable of finding said articles, the possibility of the news sites completely erasing evidence of their original reports is an interesting case to consider. Could this be an implicit admittance of their faulty reporting? Or rather did the organizations think it best to no longer have old reports online that may further fuel anti-vaccination beliefs?

In any case, the reports online seem to only go as far as 2001 for this story. At this point in time, the medical and science community had rising worries over a possible measles outbreak due to the decrease in MMR vaccinations. Media organizations were now at a crossroads. Do they strive for balance in reporting this story or do they report what the majority of experts in the field believe? The framing and complexity of the case can be seen in the January 22, 2001 article by The BBC and the January 21, 2001 article by The Telegraph, which will be further analyzed in this blog post. 

In essence, the media’s biggest faults in reporting this case was over-interpretation of the results when the study was first published and attempts at ‘balanced’ coverage when the study was proven false. A Columbia Journalism Review article by Curtis Brainard obtained a quote from Dr. Ben Goldacre that best summarized the situation, “[Y]ou will see news reporters, including the BBC, saying stupid things like ‘The research has since been debunked.’ Wrong. The research never justified the media’s ludicrous over-interpretation. If they had paid attention, the scare would never have even started.”

Media Disseminators: The BBC and The Telegraph

The BBC and The Telegraph are two large media organizations based in the UK with very different approaches to reporting the news. 

The Telegraph has been owned by the Barclay brothers since 2004 and is known in the UK to be a right-wing leaning publication. Their political stance is made quite clear in their publications as they go as far as to tell readers to “Vote Conservative for an independent, prosperous Britain”. It’s also important to note that the UK’s independent fact-checker, Full Fact, has gone on to report numerous false claims made by The Telegraph over the years. Regardless of it’s bias and reputation for falsehoods, The Telegraph is the UK’s third most-visited British newspaper website with over 1.7 million daily readers. 

The BBC is a public service broadcaster, meaning it is funded by the government through an annual television license fee. This fee is charged to all households, organizations, and companies that use any sort of technology that receives television and/or radio broadcasts. In terms of reporting, the BBC is known to have a moderate liberal bias, but is world renowned for publishing factual, properly sourced information. A 2014 Pew Research Survey concluded that 60% of the BBC’s audience was mostly liberal, 26% mixed, and 13% mostly conservative.

Framework

The theory of agenda setting looks at how the influence of the media affects the presentation and understanding of a story. This can be analyzed based on how much a story is reported, where it appears on the site once published, and how the article is framed for the readers. 

In regards to the two articles from 2001 looking at the Wakefield study, it is hard to discern where on the website or newspaper these would have appeared. The numerous edits and possible removal of previous articles, also makes the coverage of the study and its effects difficult to ascertain. But the framework and language is telling of the positionality these organizations had towards the story. 

The articles, despite being published within a day of each other, maintain different outlooks on the same story.  The BBC outright states in its headline that the “MMR triple vaccine [is] declared safe”. The article gives an insight into the steps taken by the government against the MMR controversy and states repeatedly – with sound scientific sources –  that there is no evidence linking the vaccine with autism. The BBC clearly defines scientific terms and gives background into the controversy. 

However, at no point in the article was anyone against vaccinations given a chance to voice their opinion. Instead, possibly in an attempt to humanize the scientific article, a mother of a vaccinated autistic child was quoted on the difficulties with her son’s health. At first-read this quote can seem random and unconnected with the overall narrative, but this very quote highlights the BBC’s attempts to balance and give voice to members of the concerned party of parents. 

Many articles during this time highlighted the anger and concerns by parents of autistic children, which resulted in the dissemination of worries to the general public and a growth in doubt over vaccine safety. Unlike other media organizations, the BBC sides with the factual and proven science – choosing to report only what proper scientific studies had repeatedly proven at that time. As the parents of autistic children were a major player in the controversy, the BBC addresses them by choosing to speak to a mother who had chosen to vaccinate her child. Without explicitly stating it, the article promotes the vaccine – possibly in an attempt to help boost vaccination rates and lower the potential risk of a measles outbreak. 

In contrast, The Telegraph’s article concretely positions itself against the MMR vaccine. The headline is one that evokes fear in an already worried audience by stating that 170 more cases of autism could be linked to the vaccine. The entire article is based around direct claims made by Wakefield, who at this point in time had already been proven inaccurate and false by various scientific bodies and studies.

Furthermore, language such as “seriously concerned” and “fiercely attacked” humanizes Wakefield, making him seem empathetic and just, and undervalues the health officials, characterizing them as cruel and inconsiderate towards the affected children. At no point was there any reference to other studies being conducted in the same area of study or any direct quotes from medical experts and officials. Translation of scientific jargon and background into the controversy were also not mentioned. As such, The Telegraph clearly strays away from factual scientific evidence and instead has chosen to champion Wakefield in a quest against vaccinations. 

While the BBC attempts balanced reporting by giving voice to different parties involved, The Telegraph does not even attempt to consider addressing anyone other than Wakefield. The vast difference in approach to the same story gives insight into why misunderstandings still continue regarding the original story. The BBC’s approach to the article is much more effective and educational in helping understand this complex situation – there is an attempt at offsetting the damage done by initial publications on the story. Meanwhile, The Telegraph stays adamant in its views and at no point expresses news of the controversy, of updates in the field, or of any serious concern to the possible risk of disease outbreak. Readers of this article are clearly told what to believe, and are unable to even consider the possibility of other opinions or insights into the story.

Future Implications

The initially unwithheld reporting and inability by global newsrooms to analyze the issues within the study led to an unrelenting cascade of reports against vaccines. As a result, mass misinformation and confusion surrounded the public’s understanding of the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Regardless of the initial reporting, the real issues with the media arose once concerns were introduced and scientists began to rectify the situation. By looking at the example of the BBC and The Telegraph, the media was divided in their approach to the updates, which resulted in the continual misunderstanding and eventual creation of the anti-vaxxer movement. 

It’s studies like this and that of climate change that make it clear how science should and must be approached by the media. When a scientific idea or concept has been factually proven by numerous scientific studies and is trusted by experts, the media should thoroughly explain and disseminate the facts. There is no need for discourse, as there is evidence behind the claims. If reported scientific studies are proven false or controversial, the media can mention any inaccuracies or debate over the issue, but must clearly highlight the inaccuracies and proven facts. 

In regards to these principles, the BBC’s approach to the story was much more fact-based than The Telegraph. The quote from the mother of a vaccinated autistic child only further cements how the BBC was considerate in the potential effects of its publication. Meanwhile, The Telegraph did not consider nor care how the story was perceived and whether there would be any ensuing mass concerns against vaccines. While The Telegraph is not entirely at fault for the misunderstandings and resulting anti-vaxxer movement, they are a part of the reason. Which only goes to show that the media needs to analyze, be critical, and consider all future implications when reporting, especially on science.

Bibliography 

2001: MMR triple vaccine declared safe. (2001, January 22). News.Bbc.Co.Uk. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/22/newsid_2506000/2506679.stm

BBC – Media Bias/Fact Check. (2016). Retrieved from Media Bias/Fact Check website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Brainard, C. (2013, May). Sticking with the truth. Retrieved October 5, 2020, from Columbia Journalism Review website: https://archives.cjr.org/feature/sticking_with_the_truth.php?page=all#sthash.cY82FDDk.dpuf

Daily Telegraph (UK) – Media Bias/Fact Check. (2017). Retrieved from Media Bias/Fact Check website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/

Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(4), E199–E200. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3179

Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x

Fraser, L. (2001, January 21). MMR doctor links 170 cases of autism to vaccine. Retrieved from Telegraph.co.uk website: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1318772/MMR-doctor-links-170-cases-of-autism-to-vaccine.html

Halliday, J. (2010, December 21). November ABCe: Guardian.co.uk passes 40m monthly browsers. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/21/november-abce-guardian-mail-online

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

Search – Full Fact. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2020, from fullfact.org website: https://fullfact.org/search/?q=telegraph#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=telegraph&gsc.page=1

Smith, T. C. (2017). Vaccine Rejection and Hesitancy: A Review and Call to Action. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx146

TV Licensing – Legislation and policy. (2010, January 29). Retrieved from web.archive.org website: https://web.archive.org/web/20100129041323/http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9#link1

Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum. (2014). Retrieved October 5, 2020, from Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project website: https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/outlet/bbc/

‌