Is this journalism dishonest?

[Tefal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-58505658

So from the headline to the first half of the article of a healthy adult refusing the vaccine because of suspicions to associating the same belief with that of a mental health sufferer.



Why is this sane persons nonsense being mixed up with the ptsd of an overdose/depression victim as if to give equal weight to the arguments?


One is CT nonsense backed up with callus disregard (if vaccine passports come in they will go to illegal raves instead of legitimate venues) the other is emotional damage from genuine illness and a tiny % of the population.

It feels dishonest to mix them together like this article does.

.what do you think?

 

[Tefal]

I would have liked to see the article make more attempt to separate them rather than one following on in a flow to the other but I don't think it is deliberately dishonest. But I'm not really sure what angle the article is coming from either.

Me too I'm trying digure out if it's trying to justify the former by the later or discredit the latter by the former.

 

[Tefal]

No, it's not dishonest. I don't agree with your insinuation that a person with PTSD/depression isn't sane - did you mean it like that or have I misinterpreted?

Sorry it was short hand for is suffering from something that can malform their perceptions etc.

Someone with ptsd certainly has more expectation/excuse (terrible wording) for unhealthy thoughts.

Ie a victim of sexul abuse may feel panic from a hug from a family member that a person without that experience would not.

I mean I feel its dhosnonest to put a CT reasoning on the same stage as ptsd reasoning and equate one to the other


Basically your right it was bad wording by me,

 

[Tefal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-58502789

Who the hell scaled this graph?