> how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? A) I didn't know the infor

> how is it that you are able to read this story and frame it in your mind within the larger context of vaccines, but others aren't? A) I didn't know the information from the link in the first comment you replied to, about older and newer polio vaccines. B) I'm able to because I'm already better informed about vaccines and vaccine safety than most people. I am by no means an expert. And, not to dance around it, I'm also smarter and better educated than most people; I'm above average in those areas and I assume you are too. > editorialize and push a point of view Editorializing is offering an opinion. Including salient facts about different polio vaccines or vaccine safety is not editorializing. Everyone has a point of view, that's not contrary to doing good journalism. > You clearly understood that this polio outbreak does not mean all types of vaccines are dangerous. And yet there are instances of this story being used as "proof" that vaccines are dangerous. It's confirmation bias on their part and it would be more difficult to make that mistake if this story had more facts about vaccines for context. Growing distrust in all vaccines and science in general is a huge problem so while I wouldn't choose to include information in this story about how this isn't bad news for possible COVID-19 vaccines, I would understand the choice. I do think stories that try to stick to just the narrowest facts do a disservice to their audience. For instance, good-faith context for extreme weather stories should routinely include information about how human-caused climate change is a reason for increased frequency and severity.