When being positive might be negative: An analysis of Australian and New Zealand newspaper framing of vaccination post Australia's No Jab No Pay legislation.

• Positive frames of stories or statements are viewed by readers as persuasion. • People socially expect credible news media stories to be negatively framed. • Vaccine stories framed negatively may be deemed as more credible by readers. • Positively framed vaccination stories could be viewed as advertising or coercion. Vaccination rates are an ongoing global concern. Many developing and developed countries have rates of vaccination below rates required for herd immunity, for differing reasons. One way in which to communicate information about vaccination to the wider public is via the use of the news media. Communication agenda-setting and framing theory generally hold that the news media sets the issues of importance to society and also tells us how we should think about those issues. Emphasis framing theory however, would suggest that positively-framed statements in the media may actually be viewed as persuasive in a coercing way, leading to resistance to the messages. Further, this theory claims that negative news media is viewed as more credible and therefore, more easily accepted. We were interested to explore the framing of news reports about vaccination and the potential effects this framing may have had on the wider public over the years 2016–2017 in both Australia and New Zealand (when changes in vaccination policy and publicity respectively were on the agenda). We undertook a content analysis of 197 articles and emphasis frame, type of message, and other variables recorded. In both Australia and New Zealand, the news media messages were predominately positively framed and yet the vaccination rates of New Zealand particularly (where no policy changes mandating vaccination took place) have been decreasing. We suggest the media emphasis on positive vaccination reporting may be having the opposite effect of engendering resistance to vaccination within those who are vaccine-hesitant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]