New Zealand (NZ) has low immunization coverage for a Western country. Media coverage, including views and content expressed on editorial pages, can affect immunization uptake both positively and negatively. The objectives of this research were to analyze the content of written media in 2001 and 2003 throughout NZ in terms of vaccination and vaccine preventable diseases from a supporting, neutral, or opposing perspective; how vaccination and vaccine-preventable diseases are presented to their target audiences; and changes over time with possible influences on these changes. Print media clippings were analyzed from 400 national publications in 2001 and 2003 for references to immunization and vaccine-preventable diseases. Articles were coded as supportive, neutral, or opposing immunization. During two 12-month periods, 2,113 articles, including letters to the editor and opinion columns were analyzed: 1,228 from 2001; and 885 from 2003. Thirty-three percent (704) were classified as "supportive," 17% (362) as "opposing," and 51% (1,081) as "neutral." Articles and perspectives in the media opposed to immunization were significantly more plentiful in 2001 than in 2003 (328/1,228; 27% vs. 34/885; 4% of all immunization media; chi(2) = 189.46; p = <0.0001; df = 1). References to specific vaccines and disease were examined. During this study period there were high-profile infectious disease and vaccine issues that may have shaped the differences observed in the media clippings. This study indicates an overall positive trend toward reduction in alarmist anti-immunization messages in media. Strategies implemented by the Immunization Advisory Centre to counter misinformation may have contributed to reduction in anti-immunization messages.