Questions of Accuracy and Balance: The Autism-Vaccine Controversy in the British and American Press

Accuracy and balance are two norms that help govern media coverage of controversial issues. However, adhering to both is seldom an easy task for journalists. For example, how should the media promote information accuracy while also acknowledging the viewpoints of often-diverse groups of stakeholders? This paper examines this question via a case study: coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy in U.S. and British elite newspapers. Health officials have argued that an emphasis on supporters of an autism-vaccine link produced a media discourse at odds with the prevailing scientific consensus (that there was and is no relationship). However, to date no systematic analysis has addresses these observations. Through a content analysis of articles during an 8-year period (1998-2006), the paper examines coverage of both supporters and skeptics of a link. It also explores the various ways that “balance” is defined in the media literature and public imagination. The paper concludes with implications for journalism ethics and vaccine risk communication.