Newspaper Obligations

This morning I read an article that disturbed me.  A newspaper journalist decided it was time to inform parents of their rights regarding immunization shots.  In general, I’m not against that.  The problem was that it was not what I feel would be a complete article.  Sure, it told parents what their rights were and how they are often misinformed.  In our state, parents can apparently say they are morally/religiously or philosophically opposed to their children getting immunization shots and then they don’t have to do so.  The article goes on to say that the only downside of such a choice is that if there is a breakout of some disease or another, the student might have to be pulled from school until it is deemed safe.

That was the ONLY downside listed.

The article did not even mention WHY people are given immunization shots.  Instead, it successfully gave parents incomplete information about their rights.  Everyone loves knowing about their rights.  It makes them feel good when they realize that someone has been taking away their rights.  It’s time to flex those legal muscles.  Right?  Never mind that there are plenty of misinformed or under informed parents out there.  I’m sure your little piece about rights is really helping people.

I don’t care if it’s an opinion piece.  If a newspaper is publishing a story, they should be obligated to tell the complete story.  Telling a partial truth is just the same as a lie, isn’t it?


1 Comment

  1. renaissanceguy said,

    February 25, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Yes, it is the same as a lie. Journalists should do better than that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: