Percy Junor Hospital becomes 12th baby-friendly certified institution.

[ 07/02/2026 23:43 ] Read on jamaicaobserver.com

Report Overview: The core article about Percy Junor Hospital’s baby‑friendly accreditation is straightforward, factual, and largely free of manipulative techniques. It reports a specific event, cites identifiable officials, and provides concrete numbers (number of certified hospitals, births, years). The tone is mildly celebratory but appropriate for a government achievement story and does not distort facts or attack any side. The only minor issues are some uncritical, promotional phrasing and lack of perspectives beyond officials and hospital management, which slightly reduces overall objectivity.

Sides Objectivity Scores

Ministry of Health and Wellness / Government (94)

Percy Junor Hospital / Hospital Management (94)

General Public / Patients / Communities (88)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

Ministry of Health and Wellness / Government and Percy Junor Hospital / Hospital Management

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally positive or inspiring language to generate approval rather than relying solely on neutral, factual description.

Phrases such as “That’s a big deal! It means that we are improving standards…it means that the team in the respective institutions are doing the work, have been provided with the support…”, and the CEO’s quote: “I am absolutely elated. This does not only mean that our standards have been raised. It means a positive paradigm shift in the right direction in becoming a first-class hospital in not only Jamaica, but the Caribbean.” These are direct quotes and therefore legitimate to report, but they frame the development in strongly positive, emotive terms without any balancing or contextual qualification from independent sources.

Clearly distinguish emotional or celebratory language as the speaker’s opinion and not as an objective assessment, for example: “Tufton described the increase as ‘a big deal’, saying he believes it reflects improved standards.”

Add neutral context or data to balance the emotional framing, e.g. include statistics on breastfeeding rates, infant mortality trends, or independent evaluations of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative’s impact.

Include at least one neutral or expert voice (not directly involved in the Ministry or hospital) to comment on the significance of the accreditation, which can temper purely emotional or promotional statements.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex issue as simpler than it is, omitting relevant nuances or potential limitations.

The article states: “The initiative promotes practices that have proven to improve infant survival and long-term health outcomes.” and then lists breastfeeding practices, without mentioning any caveats, implementation challenges, or the fact that outcomes can depend on broader health system and socio-economic factors. Similarly, the minister’s challenge: “If 12 hospitals can achieve baby-friendly status, 23 can achieve baby-friendly status. If the people in 12 can do the work to get it done, the remaining 11 can do the work to get it done,” implies that replication is straightforward and primarily a matter of will and effort, without acknowledging resource constraints, staffing, or infrastructural differences among hospitals.

Qualify the claims about outcomes, for example: “Studies cited by WHO and UNICEF indicate that these practices are associated with improved infant survival and long-term health outcomes, although results can vary depending on broader health system and socio-economic conditions.”

Add a sentence acknowledging potential challenges: “Health officials note that achieving baby-friendly status can be more difficult for some facilities due to staffing, infrastructure, and resource limitations.”

When quoting the minister’s ‘if 12 can, 23 can’ statement, follow it with context from the Ministry or hospital administrators about what specific barriers remain for the other institutions.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one perspective while omitting other relevant viewpoints or potential criticisms.

The article exclusively quotes the Minister of Health and Wellness and the hospital’s Acting CEO, both of whom have a direct interest in presenting the accreditation as a success. There are no perspectives from patients, independent health experts, breastfeeding advocates, or critics who might raise questions about implementation, staffing, or whether accreditation translates into consistent practice. The decline in births (“64 per cent decline in births from 201 in 2024 to 71 in 2025”) is mentioned, but only framed through the minister’s call for ‘responsible parenting’ and community engagement, without any alternative explanations (e.g. demographic changes, migration, use of other facilities) or data from independent sources.

Include at least one quote from an independent public health expert or academic commenting on the significance and limitations of baby-friendly accreditation.

Add a brief patient or community perspective, for example a mother who has used the hospital’s maternity services, to show how the accreditation affects care on the ground.

Provide neutral context for the decline in births, such as data from the Statistical Institute or health service utilization reports, and note that multiple factors may contribute, not only ‘responsible parenting’ messaging.

Explicitly signal that some statements are aspirational or policy goals rather than established outcomes, e.g. “Tufton said he hopes the accreditation will contribute to reduced infant mortality and improved maternal health outcomes.”

Selective use of sources

Relying on sources that all share the same institutional or interest alignment, which can skew the narrative.

All quoted voices are either government officials (Minister of Health and Wellness, Ministry directors) or hospital leadership (Acting CEO). UNICEF is mentioned institutionally but not quoted directly in this piece, and there are no independent or critical sources. This selection tends to reinforce a single, positive narrative about the accreditation and the Ministry’s performance, without any external verification or nuance.

Add a short comment from a UNICEF or WHO representative specifically about this accreditation and how it fits into national or regional trends, to provide an external institutional perspective.

Include data or commentary from an independent health policy analyst or NGO working in maternal and child health, even if they broadly agree, to show that the story is not solely based on government and hospital self-reporting.

If no independent sources are available, explicitly note the limitation, e.g. “The assessment of the programme’s impact in Jamaica is based primarily on Ministry of Health and Wellness data; independent evaluations are limited.”

Mild biased language / promotional framing

Using language that implicitly promotes or praises a subject rather than neutrally describing it.

The CEO’s statement: “It means a positive paradigm shift in the right direction in becoming a first-class hospital in not only Jamaica, but the Caribbean,” is presented without any contextual qualification, which can read as promotional. The minister’s phrase “That’s a big deal!” is also inherently evaluative. While both are direct quotes, the article does not counterbalance them with neutral or critical context, which can subtly bias readers toward a very positive evaluation of the Ministry and hospital.

Retain the quotes but frame them clearly as subjective assessments, e.g. “Sterling characterised the accreditation as ‘a positive paradigm shift’ toward becoming a ‘first-class hospital’ in Jamaica and the Caribbean.”

Add neutral information that allows readers to judge the ‘first-class’ claim, such as current performance indicators, patient satisfaction data, or regional comparisons, if available.

Avoid adopting the promotional tone in the reporter’s own voice; keep descriptive sentences strictly factual (who, what, when, where, measurable outcomes) and reserve value-laden language for attributed quotes only.

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.