TY - JOUR
T1 - Labels matter
T2 - Use and non-use of ‘anti-vax’ framing in Australian media discourse 2008–2018
AU - Court, Jay
AU - Carter, Stacy M.
AU - Attwell, Katie
AU - Leask, Julie
AU - Wiley, Kerrie
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by a University of Sydney Summer Scholarship and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council , Grant number APP1126543 . K Attwell is funded by the Australian Research Council of the Australian Government under DE1909303958 . The funding bodies had no role in the research design, data collection and analysis or interpretation and reporting of the results.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Childhood vaccine refusal is a globally contentious topic, with some jurisdictions addressing it with punitive policies. Media discourse influences how solutions are framed by implying blame – a process known as framing. We examined Australian media discourse on vaccine rejection over a period in which mandatory childhood vaccination policies were discussed and introduced, focusing on the common Australian pejorative term ‘anti-vaxxer’. We mapped frequency of use from January 2008 to December 2018. We then searched Factiva for print media articles on childhood vaccination and parents published in that period, searching separately for articles using and not using ‘anti-vaxxer’ and variants. We constructed a set of 85 articles that did, and 85 articles date-matched that did not use the term to make comparisons and conducted a frame analysis of each set. ‘Anti-vaxxer’ was absent in Australian media discourse 2008–2010, rising to a peak of 247 articles using the term at the height of legislative change in 2017. Parents were framed as: 1) deviant “others”; 2) ignorant and in need of informing; 3) vulnerable and in need of protection from anti-vaccination activists; 4) thoughtful, critical, informed, and in need of agency and respect; 5) entitled, privileged and selfish; and finally, 6) lacking access to vaccination, rather than being unwilling. Articles using ‘anti-vax’ terms were more likely to negatively characterise non-vaccinating parents, while articles not including this language were more likely to frame them as thoughtful or lacking access. This study clearly demonstrates strategic use of pejoratives in the Australian mass media around a time of pressure for legislative change and conflation of anti-vaccination activists with non-vaccinating parents. We suggest fundamental changes to how non-vaccination is framed and dealt with in the media to curb polarization and fostering more respectful dialogue, and better social and public health outcomes.
AB - Childhood vaccine refusal is a globally contentious topic, with some jurisdictions addressing it with punitive policies. Media discourse influences how solutions are framed by implying blame – a process known as framing. We examined Australian media discourse on vaccine rejection over a period in which mandatory childhood vaccination policies were discussed and introduced, focusing on the common Australian pejorative term ‘anti-vaxxer’. We mapped frequency of use from January 2008 to December 2018. We then searched Factiva for print media articles on childhood vaccination and parents published in that period, searching separately for articles using and not using ‘anti-vaxxer’ and variants. We constructed a set of 85 articles that did, and 85 articles date-matched that did not use the term to make comparisons and conducted a frame analysis of each set. ‘Anti-vaxxer’ was absent in Australian media discourse 2008–2010, rising to a peak of 247 articles using the term at the height of legislative change in 2017. Parents were framed as: 1) deviant “others”; 2) ignorant and in need of informing; 3) vulnerable and in need of protection from anti-vaccination activists; 4) thoughtful, critical, informed, and in need of agency and respect; 5) entitled, privileged and selfish; and finally, 6) lacking access to vaccination, rather than being unwilling. Articles using ‘anti-vax’ terms were more likely to negatively characterise non-vaccinating parents, while articles not including this language were more likely to frame them as thoughtful or lacking access. This study clearly demonstrates strategic use of pejoratives in the Australian mass media around a time of pressure for legislative change and conflation of anti-vaccination activists with non-vaccinating parents. We suggest fundamental changes to how non-vaccination is framed and dealt with in the media to curb polarization and fostering more respectful dialogue, and better social and public health outcomes.
KW - Childhood vaccination
KW - Media frame analysis
KW - Newspapers
KW - Non-vaccination
KW - Public health
KW - Rejection
KW - Vaccine acceptance
KW - Vaccine hesitancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117760036&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114502
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114502
M3 - Article
C2 - 34715625
AN - SCOPUS:85117760036
SN - 0277-9536
VL - 291
JO - Social Science and Medicine
JF - Social Science and Medicine
M1 - 114502
ER -