One is that the mRNA vaccines were brand new, while VV was old enough that most people have already taken a few shots using it. The media has a very non-linear response to novelty.
Another one is that the most profit-seeking laboratories were working with it. And they are the ones with closest relation to the media.
Finally, it may be some reflection of the experts hype. People were very rationally hyped due to the lack of restrictions, easiness to ramp-up new vaccines, and the bare beauty of the idea. It's possible that journalists perceived that, even if they couldn't understand or explain the reasons.
Neither mRNA nor viral vector vaccines were new. mRNA had a vastly better safety and efficacy profile. AstraZeneca had the clots, the Russians had the issue with replication (and use Ad5), and the Chinese exclusively used a virus that nearly half of all Americans are immune to. And IIRC the mRNA vaccines were still more effective against the variants.
One is that the mRNA vaccines were brand new, while VV was old enough that most people have already taken a few shots using it. The media has a very non-linear response to novelty.
Another one is that the most profit-seeking laboratories were working with it. And they are the ones with closest relation to the media.
Finally, it may be some reflection of the experts hype. People were very rationally hyped due to the lack of restrictions, easiness to ramp-up new vaccines, and the bare beauty of the idea. It's possible that journalists perceived that, even if they couldn't understand or explain the reasons.