The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the topic of Covid vaccine side effects, a significant public health issue. The tone appears critical, particularly towards the portrayal of vaccine side effects by a major news outlet. The intent seems to be to highlight perceived underreporting or misrepresentation of vaccine harm and to acknowledge a shift in media coverage.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm but could potentially spread fear or skepticism about vaccines without sufficient context. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and does not engage in harassment or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement lacks a balanced approach to promoting understanding, as it may contribute to vaccine hesitancy by focusing primarily on negative aspects. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in a form of criticism towards The New York Times, but it does not resort to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The use of influence to highlight an issue in vaccine reporting could be seen as aiming for betterment, but the lack of balanced information might not fully serve public good.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement uses the platform to raise an issue but could be more responsible by providing a more balanced view or additional context.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.