Needle-free flu vaccine - FluMist
The first article I looked at was from CNN.com and titled, "Needle-free FluMist protects kids better." It is about FluMist, a nasal spray vaccine that is supposedly, "better at preventing influenza than traditional flu shots in older babies and children, according to a study sponsored by its maker, MedImmune." The article reveals that flu shots don't provide as much protection to children under 5 than to adults. FluMist was tested on 8,400 preschoolers and the study found that those who were given the spray had a much lower rate of getting the flu than those who were given the injection.
This news event is most definitely valuable to the public, containing many elements that we discussed in class. It is timely, seeing as Medlmmune has just released this information. The "event" or "information" is ongoing and upcoming because the U.S. FDA hasn't approved it yet, however the article does say:
**A decision from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected by the end of May.**
The study that was done will have a definite impact on those who read the article - internationally- because it is health-related, which affects all of us. It affects our decision making when it comes to ourselves as well as for parents when they are trying to keep their kids healthy. In a certain aspect, this information comes as unexpected, because the flu shot is normally given if people want to be protected from developing the flu. The article says:
**"The big difference is the induction of antibodies in the nose, which is important because this is where the flu virus usually enters the body. The nasal spray flu vaccine appears to induce a more complete immune response," Belshe said.**
This kind of information may be something that not everyone knows, which makes it very newsworthy and important. Currency is a value that also comes into play, for it may be an "emerging trend." Like I mentioned before, this concerns humans' health, which is necessary and helpful information.
This article can be found at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/15/flumist.reut/
The second article I found on the subject is from businessweek.com and is titled, "Medimmune shares jump on study data." Although this article is basically about the same "newsevent" it takes a different perspective because of the magazine's audience, which is a variable value. So, in that case, some of the values are considered in a different way. Timeliness applies to this article in the same way as the first one- it's recent information that has been revealed. It's ongoing and upcoming as well. From this article's perspective, the impact is different. Not only may it affect people on an individual level as far as health goes, but it is obviously affecting the stock market:
**Medimmune stock gained $2.17, or 6.9 percent, to reach $33.42 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Shares have traded between $24.87 and $37.45 over the last 52 weeks.**
This piece of information was not in the other article from CNN.com because its target audience is different; it's broad, while business week's is very specific. The lead shows this right off the bat:
**Shares of biotechnology company Medimmune Inc. jumped Thursday on news of a published study showing its FluMist nasal spray was more effective in children than the flu vaccine injection.**
The currency value is definitely important because it will become worthy of dicussion amoung those who are investing:
**"The data from this study were previously shown by MedImmune, but exposure in such a high-profile journal is sure to get the attention of many pediatricians who may otherwise have been slow to pick up on the advantage of FluMist over the traditional flu shot," he wrote in a note to investors.**
The fact that Jason Zhang, a Prudential Equity Group analyst, said this in a "note to investors" signifies that this may be something big that investors may want to consider. This article may be a form of entertainment for its readers, since the market audience is so specific.
This article can be found here: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8NAC9600.htm
In my opinion, both articles did a great job of explaining the situation and information to it's specified audience. I, personally, found the first article more intriguing; but that was only because I don't know anything about and don't really have any interest in stocks. The CNN article was for anyone and could be easily understood by almost anyone, while the second wasn't as easy to follow because of the diction. It was interesting to see the differences in reporting and the different angles the reporters took in writing the two stories and needing to market toward their audience.