How Journalistic “Objectivity” Gets in the Way of Reporting the Unpleasant Connections Between Vaccination and Autism

When I was a student at Columbia Journalism School back in 1969, one of the most controversial “lessons” was a case study about a protest march at which the police beat up the demonstrators. As reporters, we had to decide how to report the story. After much discussion, where many of us students said we should report what happened, and not be afraid to say the police were beating up the demonstrators, we were always advised to be “impartial” and “objective” and be sure we reported the police side as aggressively as the protesters’ side.

Fast-forward thirty years, at a reunion of our class, and at a workshop held during the weekend, lo and behold, we were presented with something akin to that 1969 case study. You could almost hear the groans among the attendees. The discussion unfolded pretty much the same as 30 years earlier…except this time, there were a lot more sighs and gestures when the class leader attempted to “guide” us toward “objectivity.”

So, Suzanne, yes, journalists are trained to report “both sides” of controversial stories. And while I was one of those who disagreed with the lessons being pushed at Columbia, I still find myself often abiding by them out of habit, especially when I’m not feeling as well educated as I would like to be on a topic (as in my most recent posting referring to the autism controversy). And that is a problem for many journalists, who are jumping from topic to topic and thus don’t have time to become super expert in any of them. (There are other problems as well, such as journalists trusting establishment organizations like the FDA, AMA, and so forth more than they do organizations or individuals not so easily recognized.)

The real issue comes up when, as you suggest, the “other side” has a weak or flawed argument. I’ve begun reading through some of the links you have provided to become more informed.

I will say that the story Mary McGonigle-Martin shares in a comment to my original post on vaccines a couple days ago is one I’ve heard enough times now to take as serious evidence of a problem with vaccines. Maybe the vaccines aren’t the cause of all autism cases, but the connection is made often enough that it is difficult to deny.

My cousin, whom I mentioned in the original post, has gone through the same agonies as Mary’s relative in trying to adjust diet and lifestyle—and seen some benefits as a result. To deny such connections and benefits categorically, as the medical establishment does, is maddening.