For months now we have heard about another impending pandemic and the frantic production of vaccines to prevent it. Apart from that, we know little else. Reporters covering the H1N1 flu typically recite what health officials tell them without investigating obvious questions. ... Full Story »
Posted by Michael Bugeja
I really enjoyed reading this piece. Bugeja considers an ethically challenging situation he was involved in, and uses it to make a broader point about the importance of the media as a public watchdog, and more broadly the value of open information.
This is an interesting personal story as well as a cautionary tale. Sometimes we don't know everything we should about a vaccine, sometimes vaccines aren't necessary because predicted pandemics don't occur but sometimes they do.
Contemplating this dilemma for more than 30 years, I have come to believe that factual answers to hard questions do more to promote vaccination programs than assuming, as ... More »
Unfortunately, Bugeja presents a fragmented argument that is more a story of a cub reporter than serious journalism. If I understand him right, he's questioning whether federal vaccine standards have improved since our last swine flu epidemic. However, for those of us who forgot the last one was in 1976, the story leaves us to piece that together for ourselves. And you have to wade through the personal details to get to the point. The vaccine that time turned out to be dangerous. Then on to the sidebar to get the close: without Beguja on the job, nobody is asking those questions today. Come on Mike! Why make readers work so hard to figure out what you're trying to say? Point is, just like the public, the media lets themselves be ... More »
Retrieving Comments
