[UPDATED] Sun-Times endorses Jenny McCarthy’s controversial organizations
The Chicago Sun-Times ran a Monday piece on Jenny McCarthy and her upcoming conference “for parents to learn about new support and treatment methods for their children with autism” — methods that were questioned by the Chicago Tribune last year.
McCarthy, who is behind the Generation Rescue and Autism One organizations, not only gets a puff piece from the Sun-Times, but receives the paper’s endorsement, too: “The Sun-Times proudly supports Generation Rescue & Autism One,” says the last line of the Q-and-A.
“This is closer to a press release than it is to journalism,” writes Seth Mnookin, author of “The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy.” Autism One’s annual conference “is not, as the Sun-Times claims, a place for ‘parents to learn about new support and treatment methods for their children with autism’; it’s more akin to Woodstock for vaccine deniers.”
I invited Sun-Times editors to respond to Mnookin and explain why they added the “proudly supports” line to the Q and A.
UPDATE: Readers point out that the author of this piece is the Sun-Times parent’s public relations vice president, Alisa M. Alexander. She tweeted about the interview on Monday.
Meanwhile, I just sent this email to Sun-Times Media editor-in-chief Jim Kirk:
Not one of the top three editors at the Sun-Times want to respond to my email about your odd Jenny McCarthy piece — written by your public relations vice president?
Back when you were the Chicago Tribune media columnist, you would have needled the Sun-Times for doing this; now you’re the guy who’s ultimately responsible for it.
Come on, Jim, you can do better than this.
UPDATE: Jim Kirk’s response:
Jim, the wording used to describe the Sun-Times’ involvement was incorrect. It should have read that the Sun-Times is a media sponsor of the event, nothing more. The article should not have stated or suggested that the newspaper supports — or doesn’t support — a particular cause.
In addition, a plan has been in the works to transition the Cause & Event column from a community affairs freelancer to an editor.
* Jenny McCarthy promotes options for autism treatment (Sun-Times)
* Sun-Times runs propaganda piece for Jenny McCarthy’s conference (Panic Virus)
For a more accurate take on Jenny McCarthy & vaccinations, go to
The Jenny McCarthy Body Count
McCarthy is the poster child for D-list celebrities creating a new career on the backs of sick people.
Ask Washington state what it thinks of her profitable anti-vaccination shtick as it fights a whooping-cough outbreak.
Are you usually that snarky in your notes?
Could that be why you sometimes don’t get responses?
Snark? are you kidding? I thought Jim’s note was direct, fair and honest.
Bill, you obviously don’t know snark vs. matter-of-fact.
The fact that the Sun-Times/Kirk hasn’t responded to this speaks volumes. That once-great newspaper — the paper I grew up with; the paper that ultimately led me into journalism — is dead. With this, it’s certainly dead to me.
Why do these people even stay in the business at this point? Since they’re clearly without principles anyway, why don’t they go off and do something that will make them lots more money?
I just posted Jim Kirk’s response.
Thanks. Doesn’t really cut it. Was this awful thing produced by the editorial staff? I don’t know how it was presented in the paper, but on the Web, it’s in the “Lifestyles” section, and there’s nothing to indicate that it’s advertorial, so I must assume this is a product of the Sun-Times’ journalists.
The paper’s sponsorship (whether “media sponsor” or any other kind) of this weird, dangerous cult meeting is just one part of the problem, and not even the worst part. If the editorial department is responsible for that dreck written by the PR woman (who wasn’t identified as such), nothing short of an abject apology to readers is in order, along with a promise to guard against such things happening in the future.
Not sure how or why it appeared if it wasn’t supposed to appear.
Also, I am in no way a supporter of vaccine fear. But based on my time reading non-factual “health” articles, which were usually just commercials for whatever the local doctors were pushing, I have to wonder if the people commenting on this actually know what they are talking about. A blind assumption that all vaccines are safe is not really an intelligent position.
And who made that assumption?
Well, Dan, that would be anyone who thinks: “Gee, the states require these, so they MUST be safe for everyone!” You can probably do a quick Google search and find some quotes or statements that fall into that category.
Of course, you won’t. Instead, you will engage in the usual, two-cent argument here, as you always do. But the opportunity is there. Open your mind.
Also, for the limited thinkers: I say again that I am not a supporter of vaccine fear. Just use a little more thought than many journos want to expend.
OK. Maybe you should do that Google search and try to stir shit up where people are actually saying those things rather than – once again – trying to do it here.
In any case, the fact that some vaccines might pose some dangers has little to do with the topic at hand, which is the Sun-Times editorially endorsing Jenny McCarthy’s weird anti-vaccine cult.
Robert -
Maybe you should do that sort of search before you accuse people who don’t do it as being lazy, being a limited thinker or not opening their minds.
Because I tried two variations of your comment and no one in the history of the internet has ever said either.
https://imgur.com/a/37HbO
Carol and Dan, I already have.
There’s a ton of information about the MMR vaccine.
Not sure how the risk of the vaccine has nothing to do with the topic, Dan. Maybe you could walk that logical tightrope for us to show how the risk — the main claim of McCarthy’s campaign — has nothing to do with said campaign.
Carol, at some of the boards, there are people who comment and say: “My kid NEVER had those problems,” with the implication following that no one had those problems. Yet the reports of major side effects — autism and similar problems — and minor ones — skin rashes, respiratory issues — continue. I guess all those people are lying, huh?
And as I already said, I read quite a few articles where reporters did little to no research or even attempted to get the other side of medical information. You will claim those are not on the Internet, so they don’t exist. That’s a silly response.
Two variations? Wow — you exhausted the Googles with that one!
Bottom line — there are reports of issues with the MMR vaccine, especially from the time when the composition of the vaccine was changed. Try talking to some people who aren’t MDs, and maybe you’ll discover something.
Sorry, I don’t have all day to chase your anti-vax fantasies. You keep saying you did all this research but you’re not linking it. Yet I link what you told us to Google (and showing you nothing comes up) and you’re the one who implies I’m lazy?
You’re a piece of work.
No one thinks vaccines are 100 percent safe and we should inject all of them into everyone no matter what. But most people agree that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the negatives and that there is no evidence of autism linked to vaccinations.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/10/this-shocking-fact-is-never-disclosed-on-any-vaccine-informed-consent-form.aspx
Just one link of many. Question: When you were Googling, did you try phrases like “MMR vaccine risk articles?” These types of links came up right away for me.
I feel silly telling you this, as I’m sure you would have eventually educated yourself and not just continued to cling to your original position, no matter what.
Also, that link mentions one thing — separating the rubella vaccine from the others. That’s an important part of when people encountered side effects and what the side effects were.
Again, I’m sure you already knew these things or were going to educate yourself about them. I’m sure you wouldn’t just read a comment from one MD, say “I know THAT’S right!” and then move on. No reporter in the history of journalism would ever do that. Nosirree. It would never happen.
Carol, did I not say — at least twice — that I was not anti-vaccination? I believe I did. Did you read that, or did you just jump to another conclusion?
My point is that reporters, when it comes to these types of stories — are ultralazy. They accept whatever one MD tells them.
Thus, no one looks at what might be changed in the vaccine to make it safer. That’s sort of, um, the point of reporting, last I checked. It’s not just buying into the word of the drug companies.
It’s not my duty to dig up every link for the people who choose to buy into what the drug companies are saying.
Seriously, Jim….
And Dan runs for cover, as soon as he starts getting destroyed — again.
Care to answer the question presented earlier?
This is why it’s pointless to spend time finding information for people like you. It does no good.
Yeah, I wouldn’t call a Mercola post “information,” exactly.
Look, you want to argue with and insult strangers on the Internet. I get that. But none of this nonsense has anything to do with anything. You brought up an unrelated subject and now you’re looking for someone to fight with over it. Me, I must get back to, you know, work.
Nor would I call information from drug companies “unbiased.” Sort of the same thing, really.
We get it — anything that is presented is somehow “not information” or “unrelated.” Still not sure how information about the vaccine is unrelated, but I realize I’m dealing with an unarmed man in a battle of wits. And you’ll cry for help as soon as your two-cent arguments start getting pounded.
You get back to work, though. Those soup cans can be messy to contain if they pile up too high.
http://www.babycenter.com/404_does-the-mmr-vaccine-put-my-child-at-greater-risk-for-autism_11519.bc
The comments here are indicative of what concerns people. You know — those non-drug company entities who have reason to be concerned about things like risk.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to discard those, too.