One of the things about "The Media" that constantly annoys the cleanse by-products out of me is their obsessive need for "balance". I am sure you have read articles where the reporter includes "both sides" of the issues addressed.
Sometimes, there is no need for "balance". for example, if the article is discussing the Holocaust, why would anyone need input from a Holocaust Denier? Their ideas have been totally discredited, and the historical event known as the Holocaust happened, whether they like it or not.
In my scientifically and fact based opinion, the same thing goes for the manufactured questions over the need for a robust vaccination program. To any intelligent sentient being, the history of vaccination proves that they are effective and have eradicated diseases such as small pox, and polio (from the western world). Balance is not required.
However, like I said, reporters need to report balance. That is what they do. If they did not, they would be "taking sides" and that is something that journalism schools frown upon. So, I do understand.
However, who do they go to for balance? Well, it seems to me that their favorite interview subject, the Exalted One of GR, is their favorite. Even the recent NY times article, Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade, by Donald McNeil, quoted the EO. Let's take a look at the antics of the Exalted One...
Prior to publication of that article, Mr. O'Neil contacted the Exalted One to obtain his opinion on the issues the article would be addressing, and afterwards, the Exalted One, posted this article.
This article was then followed by a diatribe ostensibly written by the Spoiled Brat of Autism.
Since it is a given that ALL articles on AoA advance the purposes of the Exalted One, GRrrrr, and the Junta, there is no doubt that the Brat's article was published with their full blessings.
Further, the SBofA also takes a few nasty shots at Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the medical reporter from the Today Show. There is no doubt that the Exalted One, GRrrr and the Junta despise her to no end. After all, she uses facts to base her opinions on.
There is no doubt that being quoted in the New York Times, or, for that matter, in any reputable media outlet, gives credence to the person and their opinions. This is certainly true in their minds.
When Amanda Peet, an actress, expressed her personal opinion concerning vaccinations and those who refuse them, the Junta at AoA got on her case, and posted phone numbers and addresses of her agent, etc. and then encouraged the lemming to mail bomb them.
And, recently, one poster on the EoH Yahoo group did not like an article and posted the reporter's home address and phone number. The moderator of the group did remove it (however, it was up for a while, and, one can only wonder if he would have removed it had their not been an outcry?).
So, the question that begs to be asked is this:
Why is the media still quoting these vicious know-nothings?
I suggest freezing them out. There are anti-vaxxer who are, at least, civil.