Journalistic ‘Jabs’:
Reported Speech in British Newspaper Coverage on
The MMR Vaccine – Autism Controversy
KIM NINA LECHLER Student Number: 12295280
Supervisor: Manon Van der Laaken
A dissertation submitted to the University of Amsterdam in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Language and Society (English) Academic year: 2018/2019
Abstract
In 1998 the Lancet published an article about an alleged link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine as a possible cause of autism and bowl disease. This dissertation explores the use of direct and indirect quotations by newspapers in reporting the controversy which began with the published article. This research bases its theoretical approach on Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis, which link the use of language to its immediate social context. This paper is concerned with investigating how ideologies are encoded in journalistic discourse and identifying linguistic correlations of ideological bias (Van Dijk, 1983,1993,2006). This will help to examine the use of quotations in four selected British newspapers in the year 2006 and 2019, specifically focusing on four articles one per newspaper per year.
The primary goal of this research is to identify what ideologies quotations convey and how the various newspaper articles attempt to represent an overall message that is represented in the way these quotations are used.
Keywords: MMR vaccine, Autism, Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, British Newspaper, Controversy
Acknowledgements
I feel very lucky to have found my way into the community of supportive scholars into the linguistics sphere. I’ve had the pleasure of working with smart and supportive people during the past years and am thankful for this.
Thank you to Drs. Manon van der Laaken, my dissertation supervisor, for leading me and focusing me during the process.
Thank you to Anne, Fien, Zach, and Jenna, for always supporting me. Our conversations have made me a stronger thinker and helped me immensely to stay focused. It was a pleasure to share this journey with you.
I am most grateful for Felix Combreau who was my rock in times of stress during the writing. Thank you so much for your insightful comments and support during the dissertation process and for pushing me to my limits.
Finally, and in particular, I am deeply indebted to my family who has always supported me and helped me, pushed me forward to reach my dreams and told me to never give up. Thank you I couldn’t have done it without you.
Table of Tables
Table 1 : Expressions Of Ideology In Discourse (Van Dijk, 2006, P.125-126) ... 15
Table 2 : Number Of Articles From Both Databases And Their Political Affiliation ... 19
Table 3 : Selected Newspaper Articles From 2006 ... 20
Table 4 : Selected Newspaper Articles From 2019 ... 21
Table 5 : Number Of Direct & Indirect Quotations Used In In 2006 ... 25
Table 6 : Number Of Direct & Indirect Quotations Used In 2019 ... 25
Table 7 : Specified And Unspecified Speakers 2006 ... 45
Table of Content
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ... 1
CHAPTER 2 TERMINOLOGY ... 4
2.1 MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA (MMR) VACCINATION ... 4
2.2 AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER ... 4
CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ... 5
3.1 BRITISH VACCINATION HISTORY ... 5
3.2 MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM CONTROVERSY ... 6
CHAPTER 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
4.1 JOURNALISTIC DISCOURSE AND MEDIA COVERAGE ... 8
4.2 BALANCED REPORTING ... 9
4.3QUOTATIONS IN NEWS AND THEIR IDEOLOGICAL PURPOSE ... 11
CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 13
5.1 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (DA) ... 13
5.2 CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA) ... 14
CHAPTER 6 METHODOLOGY ... 17
6.1 DATA COLLECTION ... 17
6.2 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ... 20
6.3 ORGANISATION OF ANALYSIS ... 22
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ... 24
7.1 QUOTATIONS ... 24
7.2 QUOTATIONS 2006 ... 24
7.2.1 Conservative Newspaper Articles in 2006 ... 26
7.2.2 Liberal Newspaper Articles in 2006 ... 33
7.3 QUOTATIONS 2019 ... 36
7.3.1 Conservative Newspaper Articles in 2019 ... 39
7.3.2 Liberal Newspaper Articles in 2019 ... 41
7.4 SPECIFIED & UNSPECIFIED SPEAKER ... 45
7.4.1 Specified & Unspecified Speaker 2006 ... 45
7.4.2 Specified & Unspecified Speaker 2019 ... 49
7.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIRECT QUOTATIONS ... 52
7.5.1 Instances of Indirect Quotations in 2006 ... 53
7.5.2 Instances of Indirect Quotations 2019 ... 54
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
G. Thomas Goodnight (2005) argued that conspiracies and controversies do not die out as time progresses. Instead, their underlying causes and believers tend to remain dormant until the time they have gained enough traction to reappear (Goodnight, 2005, p.27). As Goodnight (2005) explains, the 21st century seems to be the period in which all of humanity´s conspiracy theories and controversies have re-emerged; from the resurgence of the belief that the earth is flat, to the on-going debate about Darwin’s theory of evolution versus intelligent design. “Thus, the many-sided disputes between religion and science, social engineering and social norms renew themselves in the twenty-first century with recent advances in the life sciences” (Goodnight, 2005, p. 27). Indeed, there does seem to be a resurgence of previous controversies, thanks to the advent of the internet and social media, and an ever-more competitive news-cycle, due in part to the rapid change of journalism from printed news to online news (Hachten & Scotton, 2012).
One such controversy is the alleged link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, first proposed in 1998, by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and associates in the United Kingdom. The Lancet, a British medical journal, published this study claiming the MMR vaccine may cause autism and bowel diseases. This has led to public health concerns and sparked a controversy about childhood immunisation. Since then, yearly vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have been in decline (Stöckl & Smajdor, 2017a).
This particular controversy has gained more public attention and support as time has passed, despite the mountains of scientific evidence contradicting Dr. Wakefield et al. This is partially due to the fact that news discourse was quite polarised surrounding this controversy. Journalists covered the story in different ways and media reporting on non-validated scientific claims made it harder to distinguish scientific fact from distorted media coverage (Smith, Ellenberg, Bell, & Rubin, 2008, p. e842).
Although journalists use balance reporting to avoid bias, “false balance” can occur (Dixon & Clarke 2012, p.359). Journalists opt to report on a story by representing two opposing perspectives equally (Dixon & Clarke 2012). However, this “false balance” is problematic if an opinion is represented as equal in value to an overwhelming amount of contradicting scientific evidence. This was the case for the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism, which rapidly escalated into a landmark dispute, and has been publicly discussed in various media outlets. This gave the controversy footing in the public sphere, as newspapers consistently
reported on the link, reporting different scientific findings and claims that became public following the study´s publication in 1998.
This dissertation aims to investigate how journalistic articles covering the MMR vaccine are structured to represent different opinions and how external ideological factors might explain journalistic differences between certain articles and newspapers. This investigation specifically looks at how opposing claims have been conveyed in the reporting of the MMR vaccine-autism debate in newspapers, focusing on the role external voices have played in journalistic reporting. In particular, this paper focuses on the following research question:
How do various newspapers represent a variety of opinions by means of direct and indirect quotations, and how does such reporting influence the overall message conveyed?
The present study investigates how a selection of four major British newspapers reported on the 1998 Wakefield controversy in the year 2006 and 2019. The linguistic strategies used by the newspapers in the United Kingdom are revealed through Discourse Analysis (DA), and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). These are The Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail, in both 2006 and 2019. This allows for a nuanced understanding of the influence of quotations in conveying a certain ideological viewpoint and the linguistic use of quotations in newspapers. This dissertation therefore claims that the study of these 4 newspapers will show a general trend towards more objective reporting of quotations in the MMR vaccine controversy.
To test this claim, this dissertation uses CDA, which is concerned with the study of how linguistic ideologies are reproduced through discourse (text or spoken) and implies that no text is free from ideology (Van Dijk, 2006; Jullian, 2011). A framework established by Van Dijk (2006) identifies, through discourse analysis and critical thinking, that a writing choice is made
First, terminology about the MMR vaccine and autism is given, after which the paper gives an overview of the background and significance of the MMR vaccine and autism controversy in relation to previously published literature on the topic. Second, theoretical grounding is provided, followed by this dissertation´s methodology. Third, the collected data from each newspaper is analysed, so as to recognise the linguistic patterns of each. Lastly, a discussion and conclusion are provided along with ideas for further research within this topic.
CHAPTER 2 TERMINOLOGY
2.1 Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccination
According to the National Health Service (NHS) website, the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine (MMR) "is a safe and effective combined vaccine that protects against 3 separate illnesses – measles, mumps, and rubella – in a single injection" ("MMR Vaccine", 2018). It was introduced in 1988 in the United Kingdom from the United States and is used widely throughout the world as immunization against infectious diseases that can lead to fatal complications such as bronchitis, polio or meningitis ("Vaccination timeline", 2017; “MMR Vaccine", 2018). The vaccine is primarily administered to young children or babies between the ages of six to nine months of age for the first injection, after which the booster shot is usually given at the age of three years ("MMR Vaccine", 2018).
2.2 Autism Spectrum Disorder
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a developmental and cognitive condition, which varies in degrees of severity and can be accompanied by impaired social interactions, nonverbal communication and restricted/repetitive behaviour ("What is Autism Spectrum Disorder?", 2018). Leo Kanner (1971) first introduced the term ‘early infantile autism' – now known as ASD – when he discovered that the children he studied developed similar behavioural patterns since infancy (Kanner, 1971). Since Kanner’s findings, advocacy efforts from various psychological organisations began to fund research that studies the causes and symptoms of autism specifically (Wing & Potter, 2002).
As autism is a spectrum disorder, the criteria and characteristics of diagnosing autism differ person to person. It is, however, important to note that the onset of autism is mostly seen in infants or young children ("What is Autism Spectrum Disorder?", 2018). So far, science has
CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
3.1 British Vaccination History
The United Kingdom has a long history of vaccination policies, and immunisation has been credited as a successful medical intervention that dramatically reduced mortality rates from infectious diseases (Hobson-West, 2003). Mass childhood vaccination in the United Kingdom goes back to immunisation against smallpox and the 1853 Vaccination Act, a law that implemented compulsory vaccination in the United Kingdom (Tafuri, Gallone, Cappelli, Prato, & Germinario, 2013). At the same time, the United Kingdom has a lengthy history of anti-vaccination misinformation and movements for which the uptake of anti-vaccination has suffered. There are two main reasons for that. Firstly, the public claimed that it stigmatised children from working-class families in the United Kingdom (Tafuri, Gallone, Cappelli, Prato, & Germinario, 2013, p. 4860), because vaccines were compulsorily administered, and targeted the working class in particular, as they were seen to be “conduits of the disease” (Durbach, 2000, p. 49). Secondly, the compulsory vaccination act was seen as political innovation, meaning that the government extended their power into “traditional civil liberties in the name of the public health” (Wolfe & Sharp, 2002). The Anti-Vaccination League in London was founded immediately after the passage of the 1853 law and led the anti-vaccine movement, supported by public concerns about vaccination (Wolfe & Sharp, 2002).
Due to increasing pressure from the anti-vaccination movement at the end of the 19th century, the government steered into a new direction. A new Vaccination Act put in place in 1898 removed penalties and implemented a “conscience clause” (Wolfe & Sharp, 2002). This shows that part of the public does not want the government to enforce laws imposing rules on the body. This is because the public does not want the government to intrude on people’s personal lives: “Working-class, anti-vaccinationists, like their middle-classed allies, objected to this governmental interference in their private lives” (Durbach, 2000, p. 50). This illustrates that part of the public’s continued opinion is that the government should not implement laws that could harm the public’s ideological beliefs or their physical safety (Durbach, 2000).
The ongoing debate about vaccinations in British history continued with the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. This has led to the strengthening of the Anti-Vaccination League, and allowed for the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, which further spread misinformation. As Goodnight (2005) claims, there does seem to be a resurgence of conspiracy theories and controversies in the 21st Century, which is certainly the case for the anti-vaccination movement today, bolstered by the claims of Wakefield et al (1998).
3.2 MMR Vaccine and Autism Controversy
In 1998 The Lancet published a study by Wakefield et al, linking the MMR vaccine as a possible cause for autism and inflammatory bowel disease (Wakefield, et al., 1998). Andrew Wakefield, a doctor and gastroenterologist at the time, previously investigated a link between the measles virus and possible cause of Crohn’s disease, when he continued his research about vaccines with the new study linking the MMR vaccine to autism (Miller & Waight, 1998).
A key factor for the spread of Wakefield’s (1998) study was the publicly televised announcement of his findings. Moore (2006) refers to this as “science by press conference”, where an expert of the scientific community puts a focus on publicising the results of their research in the media to gain public attention (p. 1194). This type of public outreach is a common occurrence but can become a hindrance for the scientist as well as for the journalist, as some scientists spread their viewpoints regardless of the fragility of their findings (Moore, 2006). This goes against scientific consensus, spreading misinformation through the media (Moore, 2006, p. 1194). This was the case for Dr. Wakefield, who publicised the alleged link between the vaccine and increased rates of autism diagnoses in children, which gained Wakefield public attention (Flaherty, 2011).
In the following years, newspapers started to report on children behaving differently after they received their vaccine, bringing discourse about scientific evidence out of the scientific sphere and into the public realm (Goodnight, 2012). Newspapers that reported on this study spiralled into a debate about whether vaccinating children with the MMR vaccine was safe. This fuelled parental fear of autism.
Vaccination rates dropped rapidly from 91% in 1998 to below 80% in 2003 (Flaherty, 2011), as some British parents refused the MMR vaccine for their children (Ramsay, Yarwood, Lewis & el al, 2002; Flaherty, 2011; Ma& Stahl, 2017). The decline in immunisation led to outbreaks of measles, and the disease began to re-emerge after it was assumed to be eradicated.
While a section of the media focused on a possible link between the vaccine and autism, fellow scientists pointed out that the paper by Wakefield was a small-scale study and not completely representative of an entire population (Godlee, Smith, & Marcovitch, 2011). Researchers who undertook epidemiological studies (Taylor, et al., 1999; DeStefano & Chen, 1999; Farrington, Miller & Taylor, 2001) pointed out that there is no scientific evidence linking increased rates of autism diagnoses and the MMR vaccine.
However, it was not until 2004 that reporter Brian Deer exposed Dr. Wakefield’s study as ‘bogus’ (Deer, 2011), and revealed how Dr. Wakefield came to his dishonest data. Deer’s investigation found that Dr. Wakefield had manipulated the study through various false claims about the study’s participants, and showed that he had not waited for the Ethics Committee’s approval to test the children in his study, which was fraudulent and irresponsible (Barrett, 2010; Deer, 2011). This led to Dr. Andrew Wakefield losing his medical licence in 2004, and in 2010, the General Medical Council (GMC) in the United Kingdom decided in a misconduct hearing that Dr. Wakefield is unfit as a medical researcher, and he was struck from the medical register in 2010 (Deer, 2011).
After Deer’s report in 2004, scientists discredited the study and many in the scientific community consistently pointed to the lack of evidence supporting Wakefield’s claims (Godlee, Smith, & Marcovitch, 2011). The most recent study, developed by Danish researchers in 2019, was a nationwide cohort study2 (Hviid, Hansen, Frisch, & Melbye, 2019). Hviid et al. (2019) studied 657 461 children born in Denmark over a period of 10 years to investigate a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Hviid, Hansen, Frisch, & Melbye, 2019, p. 1). The study found, with convincing evidence, that there is no scientific support for claims that MMR vaccines cause autism (Hviid, Hansen, Frisch, & Melbye, 2019, p. 6).
2 A cohort study is where a specific group of people is followed over a period of time to see how their exposure to certain
CHAPTER 4 LITERATURE REVIEW
The nature of this dissertation’s research question requires considering several factors to understand the influence that certain media outlets have on public opinion with regards to the MMR vaccine – autism controversy. First, one must look at the way discourse is conveyed through journalistic means. Second, the question of the efficacy of objective, balanced journalism while reporting a story must be examined. Finally, the power of quotations as a source of reliable news and ideological communication should be explained. These three factors will aid in the understanding of the communicative methods used by the four newspapers in question.
4.1 Journalistic Discourse and Media Coverage
Newspapers are important channels through which knowledge about scientific findings is transferred to a lay audience3 (Dixon & Clarke, 2012; White, 2012). Undoubtedly, news discourse has a great impact on society. Media is part of most people’s daily lives, therefore when we consider the number of articles published and the constant availability of news reports to the audience, it can be said that these reports shape the public’s understanding about the issues that are reported on (Van Dijk, 1983).
However, some authors have claimed that newspaper discourse is not reality, but rather ways of reporting on certain events which are loaded with ideological biases dependant on the journalist’s own views (see, for example Van Dijk, 1983; Bell, 1991; Dunwoody & Peters, 1992). Indeed, different news agencies might report on the same news event in various different ways, as they themselves establish which components of the story are newsworthy. This was the case with Wakefield’s study (1998), where newspapers jumped on the bandwagon of the vaccination debate.
the MMR vaccine - autism link. Backing this thought, Poland and Jacobson (2001) state that some media (online, newspapers) have not developed enough scientific knowledge to report on a scientific issue convincingly, indicating that some media should avoid scientific reporting entirely. In fact, research by Taylor-Gooby & Zinn (2006) and Moore (2006) has found that deadlines, editor pressure, and competition with different newspapers encourages some journalists to push for hasty conclusions without strong factual evidence so as to garner more public attention.
Kitzinger (1999) concludes, in her research of theories of risk reporting, that caution must be exercised when generalising the way in which newspapers report on health issues or risks. Although there are re-occurring publishing strategies that some media use to report on certain events, Kitzinger suggests that further research into the way journalists cover a story is needed before making generalisations (Stamm, Williams, Hitchcock, Noël & Rubin, 2003).
4.2 Balanced Reporting
Newspapers are sometimes accused of bias or sensationalism (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992). “Bias” within this context means that journalists tend to disproportionally present a particular view of an issue or public debate (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992). Sensationalism here is understood as the means by which a medium might promote a specific news item in order to reach a larger audience. Dunwoody and Peters (1992) state that reporters can sometimes be accused of sensationalising to promote fear by giving some information more prominent space than others, or even by emotionalizing a situation or event. One example of this can be where the focus is based on an individual victim, causing an emotional reaction within the public (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992, p. 203). Additionally, journalists can be accused of bias when they report mostly on one side of a story without giving much attention to the other (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992). This lack of objectivity can be problematic for a newspaper trying to reach a wider audience. This becomes an issue particularly when reporting on a scientific controversy, where one side may be uninformed yet emotionally invested in the story, whilst the other tries to retain its scientific integrity.
To avoid such over-dramatization, a journalistic norm exists called “balance” (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992, p.210). Dunwoody and Peters (1992) explain that journalists, ideally, always publish the truth. However, this is difficult to do on a topic where competing voices claim to tell the truth of a story (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992, p. 210). When reporting on conflicting viewpoints, it can be hard to judge the quality of each claim (Dunwoody & Peters, 1992). Therefore, rather than giving a scientific article due diligence by examining its claims
through thorough validity checks, some journalists opt for “balanced” reporting, in which they give equal coverage to conflicting claims.
Dunwoody & Peters (1992) claim that the modern journalistic consensus seems to be that if it is not possible to draw a valid judgment of facts on two conflicting scientific claims, the audience should be given access to all competing arguments. A similar position is taken by Clements & Ratzan (2003) who propose that if the main truth or standpoint of an issue is unclear and cannot be easily reported on, then the story must present all claims of the issue (Clements & Ratzan, 2003). This lets the audience make its own judgment and decide which facts are important, leading to factual cherry-picking and voluntary fact overlooking. Dixon & Clarke (2012) state that, if given the option, the public is likely to choose to believe the section of news in a balanced article which more closely resembles their personal beliefs.
Winsten (1985) explains that in cases where journalists use balanced reporting, bias can still happen. Newspapers that make use of this balanced reporting norm can mislead the public about certain scientific developments (Winsten, 1985). Lewis & Speers (2004) believe that this is due to journalists presenting evidence and arguments disproportionally, reporting on scientific evidence that is not supported by main scientific findings. Often this is done using linguistic techniques which give more weight to one side than the other (Lewis & Speers, 2004; Dixon & Clarke 2012). Fenton (2010) states that in recent years media have come under scrutiny for balanced reporting, which is due to the internet becoming a popular source for fact checking. Thomas, Tandoc Jr, & Hinnant (2017) seem to concur, claiming that if media are “too balanced”, then a platform is given to people who have no scientific education. This gives uneducated opinions the same public value as scientific reports, making spreading of misinformation as well as bias easier. This position is echoed by the work of Muñoz-Torres (2012) and Grimes (2016), who note that journalists use balanced reporting out of the mistaken idea that they need to be impartial in their writing, but one does not need to be impartial when
To this point, Dearing (1995) argues that balanced reporting can make health issues that involve a risk factor more convincing to the public, even if the reported scientific evidence has been disproven by peers (Dearing, 1995). He claims that instead, journalists should communicate health risks and controversies scientifically correct, without bias or sensationalising (Dearing, 1995, p. 357).
In effect, newspaper coverage in this paper focuses specifically on scientific writing style, looking at the MMR vaccine autism controversy and how quotations are used to convey a certain ideological message about the debate.
4.3 Quotations in news and their ideological purpose
In the study of ideologies and discourse, it is assumed that ideologies are underlying beliefs shared by social groups, which are expressed in discourse at the textual level through communicative interactions; both spoken and written (Van Dijk, 2006). Van Dijk (2006) claims that ideological discourse is not always transparent, which means that peoples beliefs are not always easy to interpret. If ideologies are expressed and enacted through the use of discourse, a number of strategies have to be used to enact those ideological beliefs in the discourse.
Philips et al (1991) believed that efficient and undistorted communication of scientific evidence or medical research is salient to physicians and researchers themselves and in turn for the public. This is important to understand as journalists make editorial choices and set up the discourse around a certain event in line with what they believe is important to report on, imposing their ideological beliefs on the reader. Journalists do this by using external voices that give statements about a certain topic (Jullian, 2011, p. 767), hence giving the impression that an article is “balanced”. These are reported by quotations, for instance reported speech.
Quotations bring variation into the news article and turn a story into a narrative, which can make a story relatable to the audience. This is because rather than giving constant factual information to the readership an emotional story is more powerful.
Jullian (2011), claims that a way for the journalist to insert themselves into an article is the choice to include or exclude an opinionated, third-party voice into the text (p. 767). This choice then carries ideological implications, which signals subjectivity (Jullian, 2011). Although a comment might bring judgment along from the external voice which cannot be accredited to the journalist, they do influence the news story, as they get preferential treatment from the journalist (Jullian, 2011). Jullian (2011) states that: “In a way, it may be said that no other discourse type is more ideological than the news report since this genre is not overtly political, but the selection of the event, the framing, the sources, the way the events are
presented, the heading, etc. are all ideological decisions” (p.767). Therefore, excluding or including voices is an ideological decision taken by the journalist, as a journalistic choice is loaded with a journalists’ beliefs, even if journalistic reporting is considered to be neutral (Jullian, 2011, p.767).
Jullian (2011) claims that readers are triggered by certain attitudes depending on the readers’ value system, which is part of Lazarus’ (1990) model of appraisal theory. This theory offers “a thorough model of analysis to identify and describe the writer’s attitude towards the content of the discourse” (p.769). Advocates of the appraisal model view the choice of implementing external voices in discourse as “a sign of intertextual positioning”, which allows the writer’s voice to be extended through the use of external voices and “acknowledges heteroglossic diversity” (Bakhtin,1981; White, P. R., 1998; Jullian, 2011). This way, one can observe the way language is used to adopt a certain stance, specifically with the use of quotations to construct textual personas.
Richardson (2007) believes that quotations are a particularly important part of news discourse. Quotations give a greater sense of factuality and reliability to a text, because facts are supported by an idea or statement provided by another person. However, the choice to include external voices in the news text is also supportive of an argument already made and accentuates the stance of the writer. As Richardson (2007) states, this is because news reports tend to quote elite sources such as politicians, scientists or researchers. This means that quotations are both a linguistic device used to express meaning, and a stylistic tool for news reports.
The aim of the study is to understand the way quotations were used to report on the MMR vaccine and autism controversy, so as to see what message these conveyed. Therefore, the use of balanced reporting and use of quotations to express ideologies is studied to further the understanding of journalistic portrayal of this aforementioned issue.
CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Ideological discourse analysis identifies structures of discourse as well as structures of underlying ideologies, as demonstrated in studies like those conducted by Van Dijk (1983;1995;2006;2015). Lexical selection in specific ideological discourse follows a strategic pattern, where in-groups are presented in positive terms, and outgroups in negative terms (Van Dijk, 1995). This is defined by Van Dijk as an “Us vs Them” discourse (Van Dijk T. A., 1995). For example, Van Dijk states that it is an ideological decision to define people from a group as enemies or immigrants rather than refugees, giving the political position to the in-group (Us) and the outgroup the immigrant (Them) (Van Dijk T. A., 1995). The case of the MMR vaccine controversy was ideologically charged from the start. To analyse the way this discourse is used to portray a political standpoint, a strong methodology must be established.
5.1 Discourse Analysis (DA)
Discourse Analysis (DA) is “the analysis of spoken and written language as it is used to enact social and cultural perspectives and identities” (Gee,1999). DA is specifically concerned with “language above the sentence” (Richardson, 2007, p. 22). This means that discourse analysis looks for specific patterns and structural organisation in a whole text or conversation (Richardson, 2007, p. 22). DA is an efficient tool to analyse language and context, allowing one to judge the value of an argument. This is because DA provides an efficient method for investigating a text and understating the underlying subtleties portrayed in discourse, such as its explicit and implicit meanings.
Richardson (2007) claims that in journalism “meaning is constantly tied to context, and this occurs primarily in two ways – in the assigning of sense and in the assigning of reference” (Richardson, 2007, p. 24). It seems therefore that, ‘meaning’ is central to context, and that reference cannot be regarded outside of the implied context of an article, nor set-up in the discourse. This shows that discourse analysis is composed of two main elements – textual and contextual. The textual element concerns the structure of the discourse itself, while the contextual elements concern the “social, political, and cultural contexts” in which these structures appear (Lupton, 1992). This is helpful when analysing quotations in media reporting as it is important to gain knowledge not only about the meaning of reported speech but the context it is located in. DA as a theory is helpful when analysing quotations, but it needs to be strengthened with another more precise theory to examine the ideological perceptions of discourse.
5.2 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
CDA is a multidisciplinary approach for the analysis of how language is used both to gain and maintain power and to disseminate ideologies. It is an interdisciplinary field, concerned with the “persuasive properties of discourse” (Van Dijk, 1983), i.e. the discursive construction of ideologies and resistance against domination (Van Dijk, 1995, p. 19). Thus, it goes beyond just description and looks at explanations of how and why discourse is produced. CDA puts emphasis on the process, production and the situational context of language within a written form (Fairclough, 1992). This adds to the study of DA as it looks at context in the precise social field in which the discourse is set.
As Van Dijk (1983) states, media discourse is not only the activity of news-gathering and reporting but is a “complex process in which knowledge, beliefs, and opinions are matched with existing or incoming information about events, the social context of news production, and representations of the reading public” (Van Dijk, 1983, p. 28). CDA helps to highlight the way language is used within a text to construct specific ideological positions. Given this dissertation´s claim, this is particularly useful for text analysis.
Fairclough (1993) argues language is "socially shaped" and "socially constitutive" (p. 134), which means that language is at the same time a product of society and a driver of the evolution of society. This functional duality is useful to remember when studying the MMR vaccine-autism controversy and will help in explaining how and why some journalists, while reporting, impose their ideological or political beliefs on the reader through their journalistic writing choices. Journalists’ personal experiences influence their writing, which in return gives the produced news article an ingrained ideological position.
Past studies using CDA have found that reported speech is a linguistic strategy used to include or exclude certain social actors in news coverage, allowing the journalist to present a specific version of the social reality. This choice allows the journalist to index the ideological
Table 1 : Expressions of Ideology in Discourse (Van Dijk, 2006, p.125-126)
Text, discourse, conversation: Overall strategy: positive presentation/action of
Us, negative presentation/action of Them
• Emphasize Our good things, and Their bad things, and De-emphasize Our bad things, and Their good things
MEANING
O Local meanings and coherence: Positive/Negative Meanings for Us/Them are
• Manifestation: Explicit versus Implicit • Precision: Precise versus Vague
• Evidentiality: We have the truth versus They are misguided
FORM
O Format (schema, superstructure: overall form) Positive/Negative meanings for Us/Them in
• First, dominant categories (e.g. Headlines, Titles, Summaries,
Conclusions) versus last, non-dominant categories. O Rhetorical structures
Emphasizing or de-emphasizing Our/Their Good/Bad things by
• Forms: Repetition
• Meanings: Comparisons, metaphors, metonymies, irony; euphemisms,
hyperboles, number games, etc.
Given the limited space available for this dissertation, focus must be limited to only a few of Van Dijk’s strategies of persuasion. Among those are the local meanings of “Us vs Them”, negative vs positive representation of actors, and emphasis used in text such as rhetorical structures described in table 1. These ideological expressions help to fully analyse the discourse message conveyed in the MMR vaccine controversy.
Van Leeuwen (1996) adds to this by demonstrating the deciding factors in how to present social actors in texts. These factors are either generic or specific (Van Leeuwen, 1996). In Van Leeuwen’s (1996) view, specification can either occur through individualization or assimilation (Van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 38). Individualization is concerned with a named and functionalised individual such as a scientist, lawyer, or mother, whose contribution to the reported event helps to personalise and even sensationalise a story. Assimilation refers to groups; in this instance, these are groups of experts talking about Wakefield’s study, or non-experts such as scientifically uneducated people. Van Leeuwen (1996) puts forth two other distinctions, which he refers to as collectivization and aggregation (p. 38). Collectivisation assumes that social actors represent a homogenous “community”, whereas aggregation refers to a group representative of “statistics” such as “a number of scientists” (Van Leeuwen, 1996). This can give in the reader the feeling that a particular event reported in the newspaper directly affects them and the people in their immediate vicinity.
Van Leeuwen (1996) proposes a detailed explanatory framework that links textual qualities with social meaning, stating that social actors can be represented in terms of “identities and functions they share with others”, i.e. categorisation (p.52). He divides categorisation into two distinguished types: functionalisation and identification. Functionalisation “is when a social actor is referred to in terms of an activity, in terms of something they do”, such as interviewer(s), woman, pianist, etc (Van Leeuwen, 1996). Identification occurs when a social actor is defined as what they are or are deemed to be. These categories add further meaning and value to discourse analysis.
Characterising social actors in these terms within discourse has a representational effect. It can humanise or dehumanise the social actor and can foreground or background them. Most representation is attributed to external sources, thus the effect of representing a social actor through collectivisation or aggregation influences the way the reader understands the news story.
These tools are helpful to identify underlying ideologies expressed in newspaper text, especially through the use of quotations. These tools help to identify how certain newspapers represent certain opinions and convey a message about the MMR vaccine-autism controversy.
CHAPTER 6 METHODOLOGY
From the outset, this dissertation’s research question suggests that the literal content of the studied articles is not the subject of this paper. This research is interested in the analysis of reported speech through DA and CDA, rather than the content of the sentences themselves. While the overarching topic in this dissertation is the MMR vaccine-autism controversy, the details of each sentence of every article are not as important as the way these details are presented through reported speech.
This way, the importance of reported speech in a given context is easily identified. By comparing several articles, this dissertation makes clear the various ways in which direct and indirect quotations are used, as well as their overall conveyed message about the MMR vaccine-autism controversy. Journalistic reporting carries with it several issues in objectivity, such as political leaning and support for a certain cause, previous personal experiences, mannerisms, and political and social discourse. These all come together in the understanding that context and language function as the sum of these smaller parts.
6.1 Data Collection
Data were selected from 4 British newspapers; 2 broadsheets newspapers: The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian and 2 tabloid newspapers: The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror. These newspapers were chosen as they not only represent two sides to the British political spectrum, but they are the highest-circulating dailies in the United Kingdom. This gives some idea as to the pervasiveness of the ideas touted by each newspaper. The online archive “Nexis Uni” was used to access the articles. The key search term "MMR vaccine and autism" was used to find articles containing information about the controversy. However, Nexis Uni, although helpful for this study due to its precise search parameters, offers only a limited number of articles from various newspapers. Therefore, the online archives of the selected newspapers were used to search for more comparable data. The key search terms "MMR vaccine and autism 2006" or "MMR vaccine and autism 2019" were used to find articles from the relevant newspaper websites in the corresponding month and year.
Each newspaper that was selected for in-depth analysis of quotations had to, in both 2006 and 2019: 1) be published within a specific time period, 2) be published within the same newspaper section such as feature, opinion piece, news, society, etc., and 3) report on similar topics. In this case the selected newspaper section was the “news story”, which is usually a time sensitive piece of writing about current events.
The data for this dissertation were taken from the sample months of June 2006 and March 2019. At the time of writing, 2019 provided more data in the chosen month than the equivalent month of 2018 for contextual reasons.
June 2006 was selected because an outbreak of measles cases was reported that year, leading to the first measles-related death in 14 years (“BBC NEWSï First measles death for 14 years”, 2006; “BBC News – MMR research timeline”, 2008). Moreover, in 2006, more cases of measles were reported than any other time since Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 publication in the Lancet (Elliman & Bedford, 2007). 2006 was also the year when the General Medical Council announced their misconduct charges against Dr. Wakefield, while at the same time, new studies from America were published which supported Wakefield (“MMR timeline”, 2010; Godlee, Smith, & Marcovitch,2011). Many people in Britain were unhappy with former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour party government in 2006. This led to Blair’s resignation in 2007, paving the way for the establishment of a Tory-led house in the elections of 2010, due to frustration with the labour government in prior years (Davis, n.d.; Gallagher, 2019). This reveals the growing distrust in the government at the time.
2019 was selected as a comparable time period, since a new study was recently published by Hviid, Hansen, Frisch, & Melbye (2019). This cohort study, carried out in Denmark with roughly 6,500 participants, showed definitively that no link or connection between the MMR vaccine and autism exists. 2019 is also used because measles outbreaks have recently seen an increase, and anti-vaccine misinformation is gaining support on social media. The government in power as of June 2019 is still the conservative party, with Theresa May as Prime Minister until her replacement is found. Hence, newspapers in both 2006 and 2019 reported on similar topics, including measles outbreaks and new studies on either side of the MMR vaccine and autism debate. Furthermore, studying two specific points in time reveals how discourse may have shifted due to different events and different governments.
Table 2 : Number of articles from both databases and their political affiliation
Broadsheet Broadsheet Tabloid Tabloid
Newspapers The Daily
Telegraph
The Guardian The Daily Mail/ Mail
online
The Daily Mirror Political affiliation Centre-right
conservative Centre-left liberalism view Centre-right Centre-left Number of articles in 2006 5 6 10 2 Number of articles in 2019 2 12 4 6
Table 2 shows the number of articles relating to the controversy, per year, per newspaper, from both the “Nexis Uni” database and the newspapers´ online archive. This table serves to show the irregularity with which the controversy is reported on by these papers. The numbers of articles per year is quite random, but does not, however, work as a disadvantage to this study, as the frequency with which each paper reports on the controversy reveals much. Additionally, many articles were published as features, opinion pieces, or in lifestyle columns, which makes generalisations of linguistic trends difficult. Thus, the focus is only on “news stories”, as they were the most reliable and comparable source and available for both years and all 4 newspapers, both linguistically and numerically.
For the analysis, only 1 newspaper article published in the news section per newspaper per year was selected to analyse the use of quotations. It must be reiterated that the context, and therefore the message conveyed by reported speech, rather than the actual content of the sentence, is studied here.
Therefore, this dissertation concentrates on specific cases to identify the use of precise linguistic and journalistic readership attraction strategies on a smaller scale, particularly through the use of quotations. This allows for efficient identification and analysis of patterns within the selected articles, so as to understand, for example, ideologically motivated writing, or non-standard methods of reporting.
The analysis is based on one specific type of newspaper writing; the “news story”. A news story is a time-sensitive piece of writing concerned with publishing a story as quickly as possible after a specific event has occurred (Dianova, 2017). This journalistic style emphasises content; straight to the point, forward writing, simple and effective words to deliver an event
quickly (Dianova, 2017). This type of article allows for a small-scale representation of the political spectrum of papers, readers and journalists within this dissertation. This is because these papers each have a wide readership with a fairly constant base, which gather, collectively, just over 22 million daily readers (Newsworks.org.uk, 2019)4, giving this study a fairly good idea of the pervasiveness of each papers’ ideological reach. This is important, as while a news story’s objective is to deliver quick content, the way in which this content is reported is the interest of this dissertation. Indeed, this content will inevitably be influenced by the political or personal leanings of the journalist or publishing body.
6.2 Newspaper Articles
The analysis focuses on four specifically selected newspapers per year, and serves to identify specific phrasing and use of quotations that refer to the MMR vaccine and autism. A quick description of each 2006 article is given in table 3, while a description for the 2019 articles is given in table 4.
Table 3 : Selected Newspaper Articles from 2006 Newspaper Publication
date
Headline Short description
The Daily Telegraph
June 13, 2006 “Doctor who sparked MMR scare could face misconduct charges”
The article deals with Dr. Wakefield’s investigation and charges of misconduct for publishing his 1998 study about the link between MMR vaccines and autism.
The Guardian
June 12, 2006 “Doctor behind MMR scare to face four charges
The article is concerned with the charges against Dr.
The Daily Mail
June 12, 2006 “MMR autism-link doctor faces charges”
The article is talking about Dr. Wakefield’s medical misconduct charges and the support he has of others like the anti-vaccine group Jabs. The article is also talking about a new study that is supporting Wakefield’s.
The Daily Mirror
June 14, 2006 “MMR jab appeal for kids; Thousands are at risk”
This article deals with Dr. Wakefield’s misconduct hearing as well as with the low measles rates and new cases of measles outbreaks.
Table 4 : Selected Newspaper Articles from 2019 Newspaper Publication
date
Headline Short description
The Daily Telegraph
March 5, 2019
MMR link to lower autism rates: ‘The science on MMR jab is clear: no link with autism’”
The article is concerned with the low vaccination rates, and the danger of non-vaccination. It also talks about a new study that was published this year that fully discredits Wakefield’s study as there is no link found between MMR vaccines and autism.
The Guardian
March 4, 2019
“No link between autism and MMR affirms major study”
The article is concentrates on the new published study by
researcher Hviid and the final discrediting of Dr. Wakefield’s claims. It further looks at the scepticism the controversy has imposed onto the public.
The Daily Mail
March 5, 2019
“The MMR jab does NOT lead to autism: Scientists debunk controversial theory yet AGAIN amid fears anti-vaxxers are to blame for soaring rates of measles across the world”
This article covers the importance of vaccination, especially mentioning the new study by Hviid et al. It also mentions Wakefield’s claims as well as the importance of vaccinations and the danger of not being vaccinated.
The Daily Mirror
March 27, 2019
“MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism says scientists after study of 650,00
children”
This article deals with the new published study that shows that there is no link found between the MMR vaccine and autism as well as the resurge of measles cases.
This is just a brief overview of all articles and the main topic they are concerned with. Allowing for a comparable analysis of all selected newspapers articles on a small scale.
6.3 Organisation of Analysis
Given that focus is on how direct or indirect quotations are used to convey an overall message about the vaccine and autism controversy, it is important to make clear what the structural classifications consist of, as well as the steps of analysis.
In the thesis, the quotations were analysed by following these steps:
1) Identify all instances of reported speech in the news reports (direct and indirect quotations)
(i) “Professor Sir David Hall, a paediatrician at Sheffield University, says:” The time has come to draw a line under the question of any association between the MMR vaccine and autism. The UK’s children are in danger of serious illness or death if they are left unimmunised”. (The Guardian, June 27, 2006)
Indirect quotations tend to interpret speech rather than reporting it exactly, thus the reporter “paraphrases, summarises, re-phrases and re-words the speech” from an external voice (Harry, 2014, p.1043-1044). Harry (2014) makes the distinction between free-indirect speech and indirect speech. Usually free-indirect speech makes use of neutral speech words such as “said” or “says” (Connell, 1998; Harry, 2014). These persuade the audience as they are seen as more truthful (Harry, 2014, p.1043). However, as Harry says indirect speech is also marked by speech verbs such as “alleged”, “warned”, “labelled”, etc (Harry, 2014, p.1044). This allows the journalist to implement “evaluative intrusion into the re-voicing of the external voice” (Harry, 2014, p.1044). These two distinctions of indirect quotes can be seen in (ii) and (iii). (ii) Director of the Health Protection Surveillance Centre Dr Darian O’Flanagan said the
drop in Irish children being vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) could put youngsters in danger. (The Daily Mail, June 14, 2006)
The indirect quotations that use “marked” or “infused” speech verbs (Harry, 2014, p.1044) are characterised by their attitude. Thus, words such as “alleged” or labelled” are means for the journalist to distance him/herself, while a word such as “warned” pushes an objective forward. This allows for the journalist to add an interpersonal scope (Harry, 2014, p.1046).
(iii) On Friday, Unicef warned measles cases had risen to shocking levels around the world, spreading among unvaccinated children. (The Guardian, March 4, 2019)
This subtle distinction between free-indirect and indirect speech allows the journalist to further emphasis and add more journalistic attitude onto the quotations. However in this study I refer only to indirect quotations throughout while keeping this subtle distinction in mind.
The proposed instances are formal criterion for this investigation and are helpful to understand the main context of the quotations and how they are used.
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Chapter seven presents the analysis of the data set. The analysis specifically focuses on different types of quotations that were used in the articles, using the theoretical framework to demonstrate the power of quotations.
The goal of this analysis is to understand the structuring of the articles, and how these articles use quotations to convey underlying ideologies. This will permit us to see how the use of quotations influences the message that is conveyed about the MMR vaccine-autism controversy, and determine which factors might explain possible differences between the articles over the different years.
7.1 Quotations
This section establishes the importance and power of quotations through discourse analysis, as a method to dissect the way journalists have conveyed different viewpoints on the MMR and autism controversy.
As previously stated in section 4.3, quotations are helpful tools for journalists, obtained through interviews which provide “quotable material to underpin the news” (Montgomery, 2008, p. 261). Many newspapers use specific quotations to promote a particular political standpoint, while maintaining the ability to claim neutrality by claiming they merely reported the facts. However, quotations are only (re)interpretations of certain events. There is constant play between journalists trying to stay unbiased and focusing on directly quoting the speaker, and journalists wanting to impose their views (Jullian, 2011). The way in which quotations are used often sheds light on some speakers, while silencing other opinions and scientific evidence.
As described in 6.3 indirect quotations summarize what an external voice has said or written by the reporter, which means that some loss in the original intent and meaning of the quotation can occur (Coulmas, 1986; Eissa, 2014). Indirect quotations gather a journalist´s own opinion and that of the external voice, conflating two views. This implies an inherent bias within the quotation, as the indirect quotation requires the use of paraphrasing (Richardson, 2007).
Table 5 : Number of Direct & Indirect Quotations used in in 2006 The Daily
Telegraph
The Guardian The Daily Mail/ Mail Online The Daily Mirror Direct Quotations 2006 3 0 8 1 Indirect Quotations 2006 3 4 5 3
Table 5 indicates the number of instances in which direct and indirect quotations were used in all four newspaper articles in 2006.
Table 6 : Number of Direct & Indirect Quotations used in 2019 The Daily
Telegraph
The Guardian The Daily Mail/ Mail Online The Daily Mirror Direct Quotations 2019 2 6 1 5 Indirect Quotations 2019 3 6 4 11
Table 6 shows the number of direct and indirect quotations used in the chosen articles in 2019. These tables show that in 2006, direct quotations were used more in the conservative newspapers than in the liberal newspapers. In comparison, in 2019 direct quotations were used more by the liberal newspapers than in conservative newspapers.
This implies that direct quotations became accredited more facticity and accuracy in the liberal newspapers in 2019, as the newspapers tried to report only on the main findings of the new study by Hviid et al (2019). In addition, the use of indirect quotations in 2006 in the liberal papers may be used to strategically implement ideological beliefs that Van Dijk (2006) states are not always transparent in discourse. Thus, indirect quotations were used to express or enact the belief of the “outgroup” at the time. The outgroup here is seen as the people who disagreed with Wakefield, and the ingroup as the people who trusted Wakefield´s findings. This implies that the conservative newspapers used direct quotations to give credibility to Wakefield.
Quotations patterns are very important, especially because they convey different perspectives and ideologies. The following sections will study the relationship between
quotations and the message they convey, which will help to clarify the different uses of direct and indirect quotations.
7.2.1 Conservative Newspaper Articles in 2006
The conservative broadsheet (article 1), The Daily Telegraph and the conservative tabloid (article 3) The Daily Mail each begin their June 2006 articles by giving statements about Wakefield’s study, either through immediate validation or through reported speech.
(1) If found guilty Dr Wakefield,50, could be struck off the medical register at a hearing expected next year but he welcomes the opportunity to publicly defend himself.
Speaking yesterday(mon) he said: "There is an investigation and inevitably that investigation will come to a hearing and that's the way it was always going to be.
"I would welcome a hearing and I am keen to have the issue heard. It needs to be aired, it's a matter of public interest and the truth needs to be told."
(The Daily Mail, June 12, 2006)
In example (1) Dr. Andrew Wakefield is quoted. The quotation shows that Dr. Wakefield himself is open for an investigation because of his published study. The Daily Mail attributes credibility to Dr. Wakefield, using a direct quotation as a counter point to the hearing at the General Medical Council (see Appendix 3).
As stated, his belief in his own study, and openness for a hearing and the investigation indicate that he has nothing to hide. This shows that The Daily Mail communicates scientific theories that are not supported by the majority of the scientific community, giving a maverick the voice to speak out about his unorthodox scientific theory (Dearing,1995).
The quotation is mixed with a paraphrase “he welcomes the opportunity to publicly defend himself”. This use of mixed paraphrase and direct quotation is a strong ideological tool, which is used to direct the readers interpretation of the discourse. The choice to quote Dr. Wakefield
accusations being levelled at him, accusations which he believes he will be able to dispel. Once more, the use of Wakefield’s voice is combined with the image of the maverick communicating his scientifically unsound ideas. Additionally, this quote positively represents Dr. Wakefield while negatively representing the GMC. This is possibly due to the fact that the newspapers used Dr. Wakefield as a source, giving space to his personal story so that he might give the controversy a positive spin, arguing for himself. As Jullian (2011) states, quotations are used to fulfil different purposes; in this case the direct quotations are used to reassert what was said. Here it indicated that if found guilty, he will face serious charges, but allow for Wakefield to defend himself throughout the entire article (Appendix 3).
Example (2) from The Daily Telegraph is structured to make the reader suspicious of the allegations against Wakefield.
(2) A spokesman said: “The GMC is currently investigating Dr Wakefield, and he has previously expressed his desire to co-operate with the investigation. During the course of an investigation, charges are drafted, and these charges are then investigated. As the investigation proceeds, these charges will evolve, and may be added to or dropped depending on what evidence comes to light.
(The Daily Telegraph, June 13, 2006)
While there is a lot of information in the paragraph, the reference to an undefined “number of allegations” against the specifically mentioned “Dr. Wakefield” implements doubt in the reader about the seriousness of the misconduct charges. It may seem as though the only reason he is investigated is because he published a study linking autism with the MMR vaccine. While this is still a cautious description, one can already note the subtle bias that is expressed. The article starts by identifying why charges are being brought against Wakefield in the first place. This is followed by a statement that a 13-year-old boy has died from the measles virus. To position the direct quotation from the GMC spokesman right after this statement is to contextualise the controversy, therefore dramatizing the coverage. The quotation uses a rhetorical structure put forth by Van Dijk (2006), where the direct quotation uses uncertainty of “numbers” such as “charges will evolve, and may be added or dropped”. This is a very vague description which emphasises the allegations, while at the same time questioning them. This has two effects; on the one hand there are many allegations implying the seriousness of the misconduct, while on the other hand this statement has a questioning effect through “numbers”. This is done through the use of the plural form to avoid describing or counting the allegations, remaining as vague as possible. There is no clear mention of what Wakefield is being accused of, all we know is that an investigation is underway. This shows that although the quote is
neutrally formulated on the surface, it has the power to trigger an evaluative effect in the reader (Jullian, 20011, p.769).
The Daily Telegraph uses “false balance” in this article, and this quotation in particular serves to demonstrate the use of balance used by the paper to try to remain unbiased, though clearly, the journalist’s bias shines through. Both, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail mention other scientists who have criticised and debunked Dr. Wakefield’s theory, to give the impression of objectivity. However, these studies and scientists are mentioned much later into the articles; in paragraph 14 for The Daily Mail, and paragraph 12 for The Daily Telegraph (see Appendix 1). Balanced reporting thus gave a voice to the maverick, in this case Dr. Wakefield, as an equal to the entire scientific community, by omitting to include important scientific information alongside the charges brought against Wakefield.
This subtly implies to the reader that Dr. Wakefield is credible, and that he is the misunderstood doctor doing his duty as a medical professional, as this concerned citizen from the support group Jabs sees him:
(3) Jackie Fletcher of the support group Jabs, representing parents concerned about vaccination, said: "He just raised the flag against MMR with the Department of Health. What they have done is try to kill the messenger instead of dealing with the message. All Andrew Wakefield said was 'look, this needs to be researched further'."
(The Daily Mail, June 12, 2006, paragraph 8)
In example (3) Jackie Fletcher, founder of the support group “jabs”, is directly quoted. She uses a direct quotation by Wakefield to support her statement that the government is going against him. This becomes clearer through the use of the metaphor “What they have done is try to kill the messenger instead of dealing with the message”. This metaphor is a rhetorical structure used to emphasise meaning, which Van Dijk (2006) calls “our good things” versus “their bad things” (p.124). In this case the metaphor is used to emphasise ideological meaning (Van Dijk,
that Wakefield did his job in providing the public with new scientific evidence about a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Additionally, “all” is used in a clause, to emphasise the only thing Wakefield did was to provide the public with information about vaccines, indicating that more research was needed.
Here, the non-expert (Jackie Fletcher) adopted the maverick’s idea as her own, making the theory seem more personal, coming from a non-scientific audience member to which the audience can relate. This makes the story more emotional and therefore more relatable to the audience. This type of claim is also supported by the direct quotation in The Daily Telegraph, example (4).
(4) Simon Dinnick, of the lawyers Radcliffesbrasseur, said: "Dr Wakefield strongly contests the allegations. There is an investigation in train. The allegations such as we know of are being strongly resisted.''
(The Daily Telegraph, June 13, 2006, paragraph 14)
Wakefield’s lawyer, the quoted person here, supports Wakefield, in claiming that the allegations “are being strongly resisted”. Here, the lawyer conveys Wakefield’s official position regarding the allegations. There are two ideological choices present in this specific quotation from example (4). The first one is the choice of directly quoting Wakefield’s lawyer. This validates Wakefield, as it demonstrates that he is willing to defend himself in the investigation (Van Leeuwen, 1995). Secondly, the choice of placing the quote (4) last in the article leaves the reader with a statement supporting Wakefield. As a conclusive sentence, the quote is strong, and coveys an ideological position that the reader remembers. The concluding sentence usually contains information about a certain event from the journalist her/himself (Van Dijk,1985, p.87). To conclude the article with a quotation supporting Wakefield implies a certain support for the study, even through the use of balanced reporting is supposed to promote objectivity. Example (4) shows that although the majority of the article discusses the charges brought against Wakefield, the quotation contradicts these charges and suggests that the writer may have a positive attitude towards Wakefield.
Example (5) follows this type of positive attitude towards Wakefield.
(5) Richard Halvorsen, a London GP and childhood vaccination expert, said: "It seems extraordinary that this case is coming up at all. He has done nothing wrong except share the results of medical research which challenge the government stance on vaccinations. That's why he's unpopular."
Here, the direct quotation by GP Richard Halvorsen supports the notion that Wakefield is only being investigated because he challenged the governmental position on vaccines. This is yet more emphasis on “our” common good and “their” bad things (Van Dijk, 2006). As a matter of fact, the explicit statement “he has done nothing wrong” highlights the opinion of Halvorsen, who is accredited as an expert in childhood vaccination. This gives greater authority to the direct quotation, as Halvorsen is the expert, thus his statements should be trusted. This quote follows the quote in example (3) by Jackie Fletcher, and is positioned between 9 paragraphs (Appendix 3) supporting Wakefield. This direct quotation demonstrates the selective presentation of objective facts (Tuchman, 1972, p. 668). This factual selectivity can be seen as part of the newspaper’s ideological stance, as the journalists may have chosen to use the quote to contextualise the main topic, thus placing the controversy within their personal perspective. In this instance, it appraises Wakefield (Jullian, 2011). This is done by discrediting the other opinions, as they stand in contrast with the selective quotations (Tuchman, 1972, p. 668).
The quote supports an anti-government stance, identified in this section by the quotation: “which challenge the government stance on vaccinations”.
This may be due to the political and social context of 2006, with the unpopular Labour government at the time, accentuated by Tony Blair’s unwillingness to talk about his son getting vaccinated. Although Tony Blair’s son was never diagnosed with autism and it was later stated he has received the triple jab, there was a lot of public concern (Fitzpatrick, 2004; Speer & Lewis, 2004).
(6) Prime Minister Tony Blair was accused of fuelling public uncertainty by refusing to say whether his son Leo had received the triple jab.
(The Daily Mail, June 12, 2006, paragraph 11)
Indeed, Blair was leading an increasingly unpopular government and was sticking to the government position of supporting herd immunisation (Stöckl & Smajdor, 2017b). On the other
