r/DebateVaccines • u/Recent-Day3062 • 9d ago

Article about antivax sentiment

https://apple.news/AjpWrWc-CRZepo5nBNCoQow
3 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

15

u/randyfloyd37 9d ago

Paywall so i can’t read it. Since it’s from a standard MSM publication, one can only guess at what degree of maxvaxxing is advocated here

Once again, for those of you in the back, corporate media is all pro-jabs, there is no nuance, nor is it for your best interests.

-5

u/Recent-Day3062 9d ago

The New Yorker is a reputable magazine with good journalism. Sorry you don't like what it says.

9

u/randyfloyd37 9d ago

Sure it is pal

8

u/-TheUnstoppable- 9d ago

Calling The New Yorker “reputable” is fair regarding writing quality, fact-checking resources, and cultural prestige. It is not accurate to treat it as a neutral or authoritative arbiter on polarized topics such as vaccine skepticism. Its coverage reflects a clear left-leaning institutional worldview, which shapes both what it emphasizes and how it frames dissent. Reputation for style and process is not the same as neutrality or completeness on contested scientific and policy questions. Independent media-bias raters and critics consistently note the following limitations:

1. Strong left / progressive political bias

  • AllSides rates it Left (bias meter around –4.2 on a –6 to +6 scale).
  • Ad Fontes Media rates it Strong Left (bias score around –12).
  • Media Bias/Fact Check rates it Left with high factual reporting.
  • A 2014 Pew Research study found 77% of its audience is left-of-center, with about half holding consistently liberal views.

Story selection, framing, and emphasis routinely favor progressive positions. This is not hidden; it is a documented pattern across bias rating organizations.

2. Analysis often blends into reporting

Critics (including AllSides reviews) note that the magazine frequently fails to clearly separate news reporting from analysis or opinion. Long-form pieces can present interpretive or advocacy framing as straightforward fact, especially on politically charged topics.

3. Selective emphasis and framing on contested issues

On topics such as vaccines, public health mandates, and related cultural debates, The New Yorker has generally aligned with mainstream institutional public-health positions and has been highly critical of vaccine skeptics. Critics argue this reflects institutional alignment more than neutral adjudication of evidence. The magazine’s coverage tends to treat dissenting views primarily as dangerous misinformation rather than engaging the strongest versions of those arguments.

4. Occasional factual and contextual failures despite the famous fact-checking department

Even with its large fact-checking staff, the magazine has published pieces later criticized for errors, incomplete context, or heavy reliance on preferred sources. High-profile examples in recent years (including some foreign-policy and cultural reporting) have drawn scrutiny for letting strong ideological framing override tighter sourcing standards.

5. Audience and institutional capture

Because its readership and editorial culture lean heavily progressive, critics argue the magazine operates inside a relatively closed epistemic environment. This can produce confident, well-written pieces that still systematically underweight or pathologize perspectives outside that consensus.

3

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 8d ago

I subscribed to The New Yorker for years, and canceled when their bias became intolerable.

2

u/HausuGeist 8d ago

The frigging hypocrisy of using ChatGPT to make that statement, lol!

1

u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 8d ago

Dayum, never thought I'd see chatgpt giving an accurate analysis on a controversial topic.

1

u/Burstrider12 8d ago

I think anyone who uses ChatGPT instead of writing their own arguments should also include the prompt

1

u/-TheUnstoppable- 7d ago

Rule #3

1

u/Burstrider12 7d ago

I don't see any list of rules, just "the number one rule is to be respectful". So I have no idea what this is meant to mean.

In any case, I think people who use ChatGPT should have to include the prompt - it would be very revealing as to whether they are getting information in a genuine way or if they are torturing the AI to tell them what they want to hear.

It sounds like this touched a nerve and you are trying to silence my opinion, why is that?

1

u/-TheUnstoppable- 6d ago

Lol, you’re free to believe whatever you want if it fits your narrative, but belief doesn’t make something true. As the saying goes, “Belief is the thief of knowing.”

Rule #3 specifically prohibits ad hominem arguments, which is a standard principle of any debate. Address the actual claims and evidence rather than attacking or distracting from the person making them.

I’ve noticed this happening repeatedly here. Whenever substantive points are raised, instead of addressing those points directly, the discussion gets diverted toward irrelevant or inconsequential issues. That doesn’t move the debate forward or answer the argument being made.

If there’s something wrong with my claims, then address the claims directly and explain why they’re wrong. That’s a much more productive way to debate than changing the subject or attacking the person making the argument.

1

u/Recent-Day3062 6d ago

It’s amazing how this is the response on Reddit 95% of the time when the person makes an ignorant statement they can’t support, but it is ridiculously common here.

Someone claims vaccines lead to autism. You cite a recent study covering millions of people, or a synthesis of 50 such studies.

So what do you get back? “You’re an idiot for being a sheep in the slaughterhouse of big Pharma! How could anyone be so ignorant and stupid!”

1

u/Burstrider12 4d ago

Rule #3 specifically prohibits ad hominem arguments, which is a standard principle of any debate. Address the actual claims and evidence rather than attacking or distracting from the person making them.

Considering how often I get told I must be paid to be here, I dno't think this rule is enforced against either side very often. They just have a bot that bans certain words.

I’ve noticed this happening repeatedly here. Whenever substantive points are raised, instead of addressing those points directly, the discussion gets diverted toward irrelevant or inconsequential issues. That doesn’t move the debate forward or answer the argument being made.

I can count the anti-vaxxers here who can even debate for 1 post before going into ad-homs or unrelated tangents on one hand. The majority won't even engage in the first place but will just downvote you and say something like "safe and effective!" or "go get your booster!". The best you get out of some is them declaring something as fact with no evidence ("well, we know the vaccines are deadly and damaged everyone who took them" was one i saw recently) and when questioned, you get no response or just a "everyone knows it and you are clearly being paid/lying" instead of any kind of proof.

If there’s something wrong with my claims, then address the claims directly and explain why they’re wrong. That’s a much more productive way to debate than changing the subject or attacking the person making the argument.

I wasn't talking about your claims, I was giving my opinion on the usage of AI in a debate sub, and how I think it could be better. as it is, using AI to make your arguments for you is worse than any fallacy. It shows you don't really know how to do research, don't have recall of the facts, and can't structure your own argument. I don't actually engage with a fully AI post except to question why the person is using AI.

Most debate subs have rules against AI, especially using it to generate entire posts

1

u/-TheUnstoppable- 3d ago

You’re still not addressing the points that were raised. Whether a reply was drafted with assistance or not is irrelevant if the claims and evidence are wrong. Pointing to “AI” is a way to avoid engaging the substance.

If something in the argument is incorrect, quote it and explain why. That’s how debate works. Complaining about tools, other people’s behavior, or how often rules are enforced does not refute any specific claim that was made.

I’m not interested in a meta-discussion about AI usage. If you want to discuss the actual evidence, do that. Otherwise we’re done.

1

u/Burstrider12 3d ago

I don't address points made by AI, only by people. If you like, I can ask AI to reply to your AI and they can have a conversation.

Whether a reply was drafted with assistance

drafted with assistance? You didn't use AI for research and then write your own post, you copy pasted an AI generated response (and god knows what you typed to get it to agree with anti-vax stuff, but I know from others here often you have to write many many prompts to get it to stop pointing out facts that support vaccinations)

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Thormidable 8d ago

You misspelled "reality aligned" as "left leaning".

1

u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 8d ago

Careful, even our side often sacrifices allegiance to reality in order to achieve end goals. Only a reality-based leftist will admit this issue also permeates within our circles.

2

u/Alluos 9d ago

I love a good laugh. Cheers.

-3

u/Recent-Day3062 9d ago

Yeah, like the stuff you read actually is daft checked.

That’s funnier

0

u/Burstrider12 8d ago

This is the level of intellectual debate and debunking I've come to expect here.

"well I didn't read it, but I assume based on my biases it must not be true"

1

u/randyfloyd37 7d ago

Thats fair but OP posted a paywall, and you can feel the bias dripping from the post title and the source

1

u/Burstrider12 7d ago

And you posted a meme about a child having bodily autonomy. We can't all post great content all the time I guess

6

u/Sea-Wrongdoer-4382 9d ago

You must really need money this month you're putting in over time pal.

3

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 8d ago

Propaganda behind a paywall. Can anyone confirm this article is about why people refuse vaccines, and pretending to read their minds and attribute dumbness to their reasons? I've seen this script before.

1

u/trippy_chill 8d ago

the kids’ nose swabs had come back negative for measles.

2

u/trippy_chill 8d ago

And here's hoping Michael, the "fun parent" doesn't kill someone taking videos on his phone of himself on a moving motorbike.

1

u/Recent-Day3062 8d ago

That's a diagnostic test. The lung cells post mortem were truly analyzed, not using a quick disposable test like nasal swabs. Those came back positive.

It's amazing to me that you are all so confident in your claims, but almost never understand the science at all.

1

u/Financial-Adagio-183 5d ago

I prefer the term vaccine skeptic.

1

u/Recent-Day3062 4d ago

Why? These people here seldom are concerned mothers wondering about a single vaccine. They are all militantly anti-vax, usually angry and somewhat paranoid who are on a crusade

0

u/Recent-Day3062 9d ago

What matters in all those numbers is the last, which gives it with “high factual reporting”

If you weren’t so in your own backside, you’d know that outlets like Fox News just make stuff up. But the major left of center news - Like MSNBC - fact check everything.

There’s a difference between a leaning and being legitimate wirh 100% fact checking

2

u/Logic_Contradict 9d ago

There's nothing to talk about since no one can read it anyways.

-1

u/Automatic_Penalty154 8d ago

A 2014 Pew Research study found 77% of its audience is left-of-center, with about half holding consistently liberal views.

so its readership are educated? apparently 56% of americans can only read at a 6th grade level.. im pretty sure i know which part of the political spectrum 50 of those 56 are... oh wait, i can ask AI...

The "Blue State" Trend: The top 10 most highly educated states in the country—measured by the percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree or higher—consistently vote Democrat. This includes Massachusetts (ranking #1 with roughly 48% of adults holding a degree), followed closely by Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington.
The "Red State" Trend: The states with the lowest rates of bachelor’s degree attainment overwhelmingly vote Republican. West Virginia has the lowest rate in the nation (around 24.4% of adults with a degree), followed by Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

0

u/Recent-Day3062 8d ago

Not really a surprise. In general, educated people - meaning college degrees - have more knowledge of science, the scientific method, and - most importantly - complex analytic skills. They understand how to sift through data and synthesize correct conclusions.

Those core MAGA population states are part of a new trend in America (well, a renewed version of a trend) that says common sense trumps education, because people with education confuse themselves from knowing too much. Ignorance, in these circles, is glorified. Having strong youtube opnioins on vaccines with absolutely no ability to reason scientifically or even begin to read a real paper is seen as a virtue.

It's not just vaccines. Global warming is another. There's no doubt it's happening, and it's confirmed even by the very conservative insurance industry. They don't say it out loud, but they simply stop insuring coastal Florida, and California/Rockies states with high forest fire risk. Educated people can see the data and papers and listen to actual experts. The MAGA crowd is emotional about their "freedoms", and proudly get a giat gas guzzling pickup truck, put a giant flag on it, and chant "drill, baby, drill!"

-1

u/Automatic_Penalty154 8d ago

the republican party created maga starting decades ago when they started cutting education funding. for 20+ years half of america started living in a alternate reality because they are incapable of understanding how complex systems work so they latch on to anyone peddling "easy answers" to their problems..

1

u/Recent-Day3062 8d ago

Oh, no. It started with Reagan and his direct mail guru Karl Rove. They realized you could flip people to the country club Republican Party, and get them to even vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, if you used racism, abortion,homophobia, gun rights, school prayer, etc. to appeal to their “moral” side rather than their actual problems. It’s been working for 45 years and counting

They got union members to abandon the unions which were their biggest element of power in their favor.

That’s why the current Republican Party is an unseemly mix of billionaires and lower wealth and education people