I very much appreciated the opinion piece on the CHI vaccine mandate that was published in the Saturday, Sept. 4 paper. It’s always important to hear other points of view on a particular issue.
However, I strongly object to the presentation as a “news” article on the front page of the paper when it was clearly an opinion piece. Only one current nurse was interviewed, along with one patient advocate who was not identified as a nurse, and one former nurse employee.
I do not know the current number of medical and nonmedical staff at CHI, but a true news article would have clearly stated that three out of (100? 200?) current and former staff members are objecting to the vaccine mandate.
There appeared to be no attempt at balance. The majority of the article consisted of anti-mandate opinions from two current (and one former) staff members, and no attempt appeared to have been made to either balance or fact-check statements.
I particularly object to the inclusion of the completely untrue allegation that the vaccine “…contains aborted fetal cells.” An incorrect allegation like this can be included, but should have been immediately flagged!
Also, no apparent attempt was made to fact check her statement that “70 people …” agree with her position.
I also found it interesting that the second person quoted pretty much admitted that she had made a fraudulent statement in an attempt to obtain a religious exemption.
Yes, the last few paragraphs, after 25-plus preceding paragraphs, presented a statement from management. That seemingly afterthought inclusion does not change this from an opinion piece to a news article.
In this age of rampant available disinformation from partisan sources, a reputable news organization should attempt at least to be the balancing voice. It’s OK to present an opinion – just make sure it’s labeled as that, and not as actual news.