The wording matters – Issue XXIII
'Reporting' on the vaccination of healthy teenagers has been riddled with the addition of certain (totally unnecessary) words that are very likely to have shifted the views of their readers.
Cartoon by Crid.
This is an excerpt of an article that features in our 23rd print issue.
For those who don't question much of the Government's response to Covid (that'll be well over half of the country, if we're being honest – including many on the 'sceptical' side of the argument), the addition or omission of a small number of words that go beyond the basic facts in reports can have a big influence.
That, as an example, is why updates on the latest Covid figures by BBC News have been so effective in spreading fear – hearing that there have been 100 or so 'Covid deaths' in the past 24 hours must be unsettling when you aren't aware that a 'Covid death' is actually a death (from anything) within 28 days of a positive Covid test result (which may or may not have been accurate).
Reporting on the vaccination of healthy teenagers has been no different. If anything, it's been much worse.
In this vein, an article in The Daily Telegraph (that is, a 'news' article, not a comment piece – at least not officially) stated that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) "failed" to advise the Government to vaccinate 12-15 year-olds against Covid. Failed? It was never its task to approve the 'jabbing' of healthy teenagers. (At least, I'd certainly hope not!) The JCVI was asked to look at the evidence and decide, based on this, whether the vaccine roll-out should be extended. It decided (rightly, I believe; wrongly, the Government and the author of this Telegraph article believe) this would not be wise.
…
