Covid-19 Research in Alternative News Media: Evidencing and Counterevidencing Practices
-
Published:2023-03-27
Issue:1
Volume:11
Page:323-334
-
ISSN:2183-2439
-
Container-title:Media and Communication
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:MaC
Author:
Schug Markus,Bilandzic Helena,Kinnebrock Susanne
Abstract
The Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an excess of accurate and inaccurate information (infodemic) that has prevented people from finding reliable guidance in decision-making. Non-professional but popular science communicators—some with a political agenda—supply the public with scientific knowledge regarding Covid-19. This kind of communication represents a worrisome force in societal discourses on science-related political issues. This article explores online content (<em>N </em>= 108 articles) of two popular German “alternative news” media (<em>NachDenkSeiten</em> and <em>PI News</em>) that present and evaluate biomedical research concerning Covid-19. Using thematic analysis, we investigated how scientific evidence was presented and questioned. Regarding the theoretical background, we drew on the concept of “evidencing practices” and ideas from argumentation theory. More specifically, we studied the use of the following three evidencing and counterevidencing practices: references to Data/Methods, references to Experts/Authorities, and Narratives. The results indicate that the studied alternative news media generally purport to report on science using the same argumentation mechanisms as those employed in science journalism in legacy media. However, a deeper analysis reveals that argumentation directions mostly follow preexisting ideologies and political agendas against Covid-19 policies, which leads to science coverage that contradicts common epistemic authorities and evidence. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of our findings for audience views and consider strategies for countering the rejection of scientific evidence.
Reference50 articles.
1. Barnes, R. M., Johnston, H. M., MacKenzie, N., Tobin, S. J., & Taglang, C. M. (2018). The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists. PLoS ONE, 13(1), Article e0192025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192025 2. Barnes, R. M., Neumann, Z., & Draznin-Nagy, S. (2020). Source related argumentation found in science websites: A quantitative study. Informal Logic, 40(3), 442–473. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i30.5984 3. Betsch, C., Schmid, P., Korn, L., Steinmeyer, L., Heinemeier, D., Eitze, S., Küpke, N. K., & Böhm, R. (2019). Impfverhalten psychologisch erklären, messen und verändern [Psychologically explaining, measuring, and changing vaccination behavior]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 62, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-02900-6 4. Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L. (2020). Pandemic populism: Facebook pages of alternative news media and the corona crisis—A computational content analysis. SSRN. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02566 5. Bondy, P. (2015). Virtues, evidence, and ad hominem arguments. Informal Logic, 35(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i4.4330
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|