Publisher's column shows political agenda on vaccines

Regarding the opinion column “From The Publisher” in the Nov. 10 Sentinel, “Accuracy and fairness count in headlines, too,” the author, Larry Persily, only presents us with one side of how headlines can be biased.

Yes, the headline, “CDC says go ahead and shoot the kids with Pfizer Covid vaccine,” from the Must Read Alaska website, was slanted, but how about also showing us one with a different perspective.

For instance, there was a headline from the New York Times, dated Oct. 10, 2021, “FDA says Pfizer vaccine’s benefits outweigh risks in children 5 to 11.” This title is slanted to the paper’s overall liberal view that all Americans should be vaccinated. How? If one reads further down in the article, it says “the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine generally outweighed the risks of the most worrisome possible side effect in that age group.” They use the word “generally” here, which has ample wiggle room for accuracy.

And the term “most worrisome … side effects” makes me wonder about the other worrisome risks.

Also, let’s keep in mind that any of these risk assessments do not include the possible long-term deleterious effects from the vaccine for both adults and children.

My point is that Persily would have better served us if he had presented us with more than one viewpoint on the vaccine issue and how accuracy and fairness count in headlines. He had a political agenda here and it shows through.

John Petersen

Lodi, California


Reader Comments(0)