Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fix cite date error
added new citations and text to the US section and reorganized that section
Line 8: Line 8:
''[[Recode]]'' reported on 17 March that, out of 3,000 high-traffic news sites, around 1 percent of published articles are related to the disease, but those articles generate around 13 percent of all views, with subtopics such as [[social distancing]], [[flattening the curve]] and [[self-quarantine]] being particularly popular. The total number of article views itself was some 30 percent higher in mid-March 2020 compared to in mid-March 2019.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Molla |first1=Rani |title=It's not just you. Everybody is reading the news more because of coronavirus. |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/17/21182770/news-consumption-coronavirus-traffic-views |access-date=15 April 2020 |work=[[Recode]] |agency=[[Vox Media]] |date=17 March 2020}}</ref>
''[[Recode]]'' reported on 17 March that, out of 3,000 high-traffic news sites, around 1 percent of published articles are related to the disease, but those articles generate around 13 percent of all views, with subtopics such as [[social distancing]], [[flattening the curve]] and [[self-quarantine]] being particularly popular. The total number of article views itself was some 30 percent higher in mid-March 2020 compared to in mid-March 2019.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Molla |first1=Rani |title=It's not just you. Everybody is reading the news more because of coronavirus. |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/17/21182770/news-consumption-coronavirus-traffic-views |access-date=15 April 2020 |work=[[Recode]] |agency=[[Vox Media]] |date=17 March 2020}}</ref>


An analysis of approximately 141,000 English language news headlines related to the Coronavirus from January 15, 2020 to June 3, 2020 uncovered that 52% of headlines evoked negative sentiments while only 30% evoked positive sentiments.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Aslam|first1=Faheem|last2=Awan|first2=Tahir Mumtaz|last3=Syed|first3=Jabir Hussain|last4=Kashif|first4=Aisha|last5=Parveen|first5=Mahwish|date=2020-07-08|title=Sentiments and emotions evoked by news headlines of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0523-3|journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=1–9|doi=10.1057/s41599-020-0523-3|s2cid=220398688|issn=2662-9992|doi-access=free}}</ref> The authors suggest that the headlines are contributing to fear and uncertainty which is having negative health and economic outcomes. Another study found that news videos online did not portray coping strategies and healthy behaviors as much as they could have.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Basch|first=Corey H.|last2=Hillyer|first2=Grace Clarke|last3=Erwin|first3=Zoe Meleo-|last4=Mohlman|first4=Jan|last5=Cosgrove|first5=Alison|last6=Quinones|first6=Nasia|date=August 2020|title=News coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Missed opportunities to promote health sustaining behaviors|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468045120300274|journal=Infection, Disease & Health|language=en|volume=25|issue=3|pages=205–209|doi=10.1016/j.idh.2020.05.001|pmc=7229940|pmid=32426559}}</ref> Others suggest that news coverage has resulted in politicization of the pandemic.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Abbas|first=Ali Haif|date=2020-07-03|title=Politicizing the Pandemic: A Schemata Analysis of COVID-19 News in Two Selected Newspapers|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2|journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique|language=en|doi=10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2|issn=0952-8059|pmc=7332744|pmid=33214736}}</ref>
An analysis of approximately 141,000 English language news headlines related to the Coronavirus from January 15, 2020 to June 3, 2020 uncovered that 52% of headlines evoked negative sentiments while only 30% evoked positive sentiments.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Aslam|first1=Faheem|last2=Awan|first2=Tahir Mumtaz|last3=Syed|first3=Jabir Hussain|last4=Kashif|first4=Aisha|last5=Parveen|first5=Mahwish|date=2020-07-08|title=Sentiments and emotions evoked by news headlines of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0523-3|journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=1–9|doi=10.1057/s41599-020-0523-3|s2cid=220398688|issn=2662-9992|doi-access=free}}</ref> The authors suggest that the headlines are contributing to fear and uncertainty which is having negative health and economic outcomes. Another study found that news videos online did not portray coping strategies and healthy behaviors as much as they could have.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Basch|first=Corey H.|last2=Hillyer|first2=Grace Clarke|last3=Erwin|first3=Zoe Meleo-|last4=Mohlman|first4=Jan|last5=Cosgrove|first5=Alison|last6=Quinones|first6=Nasia|date=August 2020|title=News coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Missed opportunities to promote health sustaining behaviors|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468045120300274|journal=Infection, Disease & Health|language=en|volume=25|issue=3|pages=205–209|doi=10.1016/j.idh.2020.05.001|pmc=7229940|pmid=32426559}}</ref> Others suggest that news coverage has resulted in politicization of the pandemic<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Abbas|first=Ali Haif|date=2020-07-03|title=Politicizing the Pandemic: A Schemata Analysis of COVID-19 News in Two Selected Newspapers|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2|journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique|language=en|doi=10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2|issn=0952-8059|pmc=7332744|pmid=33214736}}</ref> and that coverage has been highly polarized.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hart|first=P. Sol|last2=Chinn|first2=Sedona|last3=Soroka|first3=Stuart|date=2020-10|title=Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547020950735|journal=Science Communication|language=en|volume=42|issue=5|pages=679–697|doi=10.1177/1075547020950735|issn=1075-5470|pmc=PMC7447862}}</ref>


Issues with misinformation and fake news led to the development of CoVerifi, a platform that has the potential to help address the COVID-19 "infodemic".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kolluri|first=Nikhil L.|last2=Murthy|first2=Dhiraj|date=March 2021|title=CoVerifi: A COVID-19 news verification system|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468696421000070|journal=Online Social Networks and Media|language=en|volume=22|pages=100123|doi=10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100123|pmc=7825993|pmid=33521412}}</ref>
Issues with misinformation and fake news led to the development of CoVerifi, a platform that has the potential to help address the COVID-19 "infodemic".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kolluri|first=Nikhil L.|last2=Murthy|first2=Dhiraj|date=March 2021|title=CoVerifi: A COVID-19 news verification system|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468696421000070|journal=Online Social Networks and Media|language=en|volume=22|pages=100123|doi=10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100123|pmc=7825993|pmid=33521412}}</ref>
Line 48: Line 48:
===United States===
===United States===
{{further|COVID-19 pandemic in the United States}}
{{further|COVID-19 pandemic in the United States}}
The first confirmed case in the US, as reported by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|CDC]], was January 22, 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Calgary|first=Open|title=United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State over Time {{!}} Data {{!}} Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|url=https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-State-o/9mfq-cb36|access-date=2020-10-23|website=data.cdc.gov|language=en}}</ref> Opinion hosts and guests on [[Fox News]], a conservative media outlet, initially downplayed the disease outbreak, with some guests accusing other media outlets of overplaying the disease for political reasons.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Smith |first1=David |title=Fox News accused of downplaying coronavirus as it moves to protect staff |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/13/fox-news-accused-of-downplaying-coronavirus-as-it-moves-to-protect-staff |access-date=19 March 2020 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=13 March 2020}}</ref> One [[Fox Business]] host, [[Trish Regan]], claimed on her show ''Trish Regan Primetime'' that coronavirus' media coverage was deliberately created by the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a "mass hysteria to encourage a market sell-off". On the other hand, [[Tucker Carlson]] took a much more serious position regarding the disease, criticizing other hosts which compared it with ordinary [[Flu season|seasonal]] [[Influenza|flu]]. Regan's show was later suspended.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gabbatt |first1=Adam |title='We have a responsibility': Fox News declares coronavirus a crisis in abrupt U-turn |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/17/fox-news-coronavirus-outbreak-trump |access-date=19 March 2020 |work=The Guardian |date=17 March 2020}}</ref>
The first confirmed case in the US, as reported by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|CDC]], was January 22, 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Calgary|first=Open|title=United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State over Time {{!}} Data {{!}} Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|url=https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-State-o/9mfq-cb36|access-date=2020-10-23|website=data.cdc.gov|language=en}}</ref> News coverage in the U.S. has been more negative than in other countries<ref>{{Cite web|last=Goldstein|first=Steve|title=U.S. media is far more pessimistic in covering the coronavirus pandemic than anyone else|url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-it-comes-to-coronavirus-u-s-media-coverage-is-far-more-negative-than-elsewhere-university-researchers-conclude-11606156163|access-date=2021-02-26|website=MarketWatch|language=en-US}}</ref>, but has also helped promote safety behaviors including social distancing.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jiang|first=Xiaoya|last2=Hwang|first2=Juwon|last3=Shah|first3=Dhavan V.|last4=Ghosh|first4=Shreenita|last5=Brauer|first5=Markus|date=2021-01-13|title=News Attention and Social-Distancing Behavior Amid COVID-19: How Media Trust and Social Norms Moderate a Mediated Relationship|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2020.1868064|journal=Health Communication|language=en|pages=1–10|doi=10.1080/10410236.2020.1868064|issn=1041-0236}}</ref> Local news has played an important role in keeping communities informed, including in rural areas.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kim|first=Eunji|last2=Shepherd|first2=Michael E.|last3=Clinton|first3=Joshua D.|date=2020-09-08|title=The effect of big-city news on rural America during the COVID-19 pandemic|url=http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.2009384117|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=117|issue=36|pages=22009–22014|doi=10.1073/pnas.2009384117|issn=0027-8424|pmc=PMC7486744|pmid=32820075}}</ref>


⚫
Some journalists in the U.S. have been praised for their coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic including [[Ed Yong]] and [[Helen Branswell]]. Among media scholars, many elements of mainstream journalists' efforts to adapt to the pandemic and provide reliable information to their audience have been praised, but some have been criticized. Writing for ''The Atlantic'', [[Ed Yong]] noted that, as the pandemic unfolded, "drawn to novelty, journalists gave oxygen to fringe anti-lockdown protests while most Americans quietly stayed home". He also faulted that they "wrote up every incremental scientific claim, even those that hadn’t been verified or peer-reviewed."<ref name="Yong Atlantic why failed">{{cite news|last1=Yong|first1=Ed|title=How the Pandemic Defeated America|work=The Atlantic|issue=September 2020|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/|access-date=2 September 2020}}</ref>
⚫
President [[Donald Trump]] initially accused media outlets such as [[CNN]] of "doing everything they can to instill fear in people", a statement echoed by Acting White House Chief of Staff [[Mick Mulvaney]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Karni |first1=Annie |title=Trump Criticizes Media for Coverage of Coronavirus |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/cpac-coronavirus.html |access-date=19 March 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=28 February 2020}}</ref> Trump had been mentioned in between a quarter and a third of media reports regarding the virus in the US between 25 February and 28 February.<ref>{{cite news|title=Media Coverage and Coronavirus Panic: What the Numbers Show|url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/02/media_coverage_and_coronavirus_panic_what_the_numbers_show_142539.html |access-date=19 March 2020 |work=[[RealClearPolitics]] |date=2 March 2020}}</ref> An [[Axios (website)|Axios]] survey, conducted between 5 and 9 March 2020, found that 62% of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] supporters believed that the outbreak's coverage by media is exaggerated, compared to 31% of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] supporters and 35% of independents.<ref>{{cite web|title=Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to view coronavirus coverage as exaggerated |url=https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-poll-republicans-democrats-news-coverage-e092414b-b1ca-40ad-9293-eeb322b2fb3e.html |publisher=[[Axios (website)|Axios]] |access-date=22 March 2020 |date=10 March 2020}}</ref>


⚫
President [[Donald Trump]] initially accused media outlets such as [[CNN]] of "doing everything they can to instill fear in people", a statement echoed by Acting White House Chief of Staff [[Mick Mulvaney]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Karni |first1=Annie |title=Trump Criticizes Media for Coverage of Coronavirus |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/cpac-coronavirus.html |access-date=19 March 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=28 February 2020}}</ref> Where people get there news has played an important role in people's attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-04-01|title=Cable TV and Coronavirus: How Americans perceive the outbreak and view media coverage differ by main news source|url=https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/01/cable-tv-and-covid-19-how-americans-perceive-the-outbreak-and-view-media-coverage-differ-by-main-news-source/|access-date=2021-02-26|website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project|language=en-US}}</ref> An [[Axios (website)|Axios]] survey, conducted between 5 and 9 March 2020, found that 62% of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] supporters believed that the outbreak's coverage by media is exaggerated, compared to 31% of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] supporters and 35% of independents.<ref>{{cite web|title=Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to view coronavirus coverage as exaggerated |url=https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-poll-republicans-democrats-news-coverage-e092414b-b1ca-40ad-9293-eeb322b2fb3e.html |publisher=[[Axios (website)|Axios]] |access-date=22 March 2020 |date=10 March 2020}}</ref>
⚫
Some journalists in the U.S. have been praised for their coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic including [[Ed Yong]] and [[Helen Branswell]]. Among media scholars, many elements of mainstream journalists' efforts to adapt to the pandemic and provide reliable information to their audience have been praised, but some have been criticized. Writing for ''The Atlantic'', [[Ed Yong]] noted that, as the pandemic unfolded, "drawn to novelty, journalists gave oxygen to fringe anti-lockdown protests while most Americans quietly stayed home". He also faulted that they "wrote up every incremental scientific claim, even those that hadn’t been verified or peer-reviewed."<ref name="Yong Atlantic why failed">{{cite news |last1=Yong |first1=Ed |title=How the Pandemic Defeated America |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/ |access-date=2 September 2020 |work=The Atlantic |issue=September 2020}}</ref>

Opinion hosts and guests on [[Fox News]], a conservative media outlet, initially downplayed the disease outbreak, with some guests accusing other media outlets of overplaying the disease for political reasons.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Smith|first1=David|date=13 March 2020|title=Fox News accused of downplaying coronavirus as it moves to protect staff|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/13/fox-news-accused-of-downplaying-coronavirus-as-it-moves-to-protect-staff|access-date=19 March 2020}}</ref> One [[Fox Business]] host, [[Trish Regan]], claimed on her show ''Trish Regan Primetime'' that coronavirus' media coverage was deliberately created by the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a "mass hysteria to encourage a market sell-off". On the other hand, [[Tucker Carlson]] took a much more serious position regarding the disease, criticizing other hosts which compared it with ordinary [[Flu season|seasonal]] [[Influenza|flu]]. Regan's show was later suspended.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gabbatt|first1=Adam|date=17 March 2020|title='We have a responsibility': Fox News declares coronavirus a crisis in abrupt U-turn|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/17/fox-news-coronavirus-outbreak-trump|access-date=19 March 2020}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 21:39, 26 February 2021

For broader coverage of the pandemic's impact on the journalism industry, see Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journalism.
Part of a series on the
COVID-19 pandemic
Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of SARS-CoV-2. Each "ball" is an atom.
Scientifically accurate atomic model of the external structure of SARS-CoV-2. Each "ball" is an atom.
Timeline
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Locations
By country and territory
By conveyance
International response
National responses
Medical response
Vaccines
Current vaccines
Variants
Variants of concern
Other variants
Economic impact and recession
By country
By sport
Impacts
Society
virus icon COVID-19 portal

Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has varied by country, time period and media outlet.

Level and nature of coverage

Within January 2020, the first full month in which the outbreak was known, Time recorded 41,000 English-language articles containing the term "coronavirus", of which 19,000 made it to headlines. This was compared with the Kivu Ebola epidemic, which had 1,800 articles and 700 headlines in August 2018. Paul Levinson, a researcher in communications and media studies, attributed this wide disparity to backlash from perceived overcoverage of the 2014 Ebola outbreak, coupled with concerns regarding Chinese censorship of the coverage.[1]

Recode reported on 17 March that, out of 3,000 high-traffic news sites, around 1 percent of published articles are related to the disease, but those articles generate around 13 percent of all views, with subtopics such as social distancing, flattening the curve and self-quarantine being particularly popular. The total number of article views itself was some 30 percent higher in mid-March 2020 compared to in mid-March 2019.[2]

An analysis of approximately 141,000 English language news headlines related to the Coronavirus from January 15, 2020 to June 3, 2020 uncovered that 52% of headlines evoked negative sentiments while only 30% evoked positive sentiments.[3] The authors suggest that the headlines are contributing to fear and uncertainty which is having negative health and economic outcomes. Another study found that news videos online did not portray coping strategies and healthy behaviors as much as they could have.[4] Others suggest that news coverage has resulted in politicization of the pandemic[5] and that coverage has been highly polarized.[6]

Issues with misinformation and fake news led to the development of CoVerifi, a platform that has the potential to help address the COVID-19 "infodemic".[7]

Misinformation

Main article: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic

The number of outlets and entities covering the COVID-19 pandemic will surely prove to have been a source of misinformation and confusion related to virus spread information and national and state policies. Dr. Sylvie Briand, Director of Global Infectious Hazards Preparedness Department of the World Health Organization, mentioned that one of the major concerns related to communication challenges is the role of social media. Briand stated that the WHO is carefully monitoring the coronavirus infodemic on social media utilizing artificial intelligence.[8] According to Pew Research Center the most popular sources of news for adults in the United States include news websites and social media.[9] Also, Twitter is recorded as having the highest number of news focused users among other social media outlets[10] Romanian scholar Sofia Bratu[11] conducted a study which considered individuals’ perception of the source of fake news by surveying nearly 5000 U.S. citizens and  analyzing data from The Economist, Gallup, Pew Research Center, YouGov, among other reputable survey organizations. Scholars suggest that misinformation is to blame for escalated stress reactions, physical and mental health declines related to stress, and increased burden on healthcare facilities with patients who are not truly exhibiting symptoms or are exhibiting symptoms as an adverse reaction to false cures and treatments.[12][11] However, Brafu[11] does mention that televised interviews with COVID-19 survivors may in fact assist in alleviating stress, panic, and fear of death.

Others argue that newsrooms should play a role in filtering misinformation before ‘giving it oxygen’.[13] While not all fake news is putting the health and safety of the people at risk, information related to COVID-19 could. Niemen Reports suggests that newsrooms should be working collaboratively to deliver consistent messages related to false and inaccurate information by choosing headlines, wording, and images carefully.

An example of fake news related to the COVID-19 pandemic was that the virus could be spread via 5G.[14] Another, that the virus was manually created in a lab by government leaders[15][16] or that consuming chlorine dioxide would treat or prevent the virus.[17] Other viral pieces of misinformation include that Vitamin C and garlic could cure the virus even though this claim was never substantiated by health professionals.[15] Misinformation has also led to racial discrimination and displays of xenophobia toward Chinese individuals through the referral of the disease as the "Chinese virus pandemonium"[18] or "Wuhan Virus" or "China Virus".[19] As a result of this misinformation several fact checking websites have appeared which utilize information from the CDC and WHO to debunk common viral information.[20][21][22]

By country

Canada

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in Canada

The first confirmed case of COVID-19, as reported by the Canadian Healthcare Network, was January 25, 2020 in a Toronto man who had recently traveled to Wuhan, China.[23] The first case was announced on Toronto Public Health Officials' Twitter account.[24]

China

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China

The Chinese government has received significant criticism for its censoring of the extent of the outbreak. Immediately following the initial quarantine of Wuhan and nearby cities, Chinese state media such as the People's Daily initially encouraged social media posts seeking help between citizens on platforms such as Weibo.[25] Multiple journalists then published investigative pieces contradicting official statements and media, indicating that the number of cases in Wuhan is significantly larger than is reported.[26]

Germany

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in Germany in January 2020.[27] Controversy erupted over a January 2021 article published by the German newspaper Handelsblatt.[28] The article stated that the AstraZeneca vaccine was not effective for older adults,[29] but many responded saying the newspaper provided incorrect data.[30]

Sweden

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden

The first case of COVID-19 was identified in Sweden on February 4, 2020.[31] The most media coverage of Sweden occurred in early March.[32] Sweden received a great deal of media attention because it was considered to be using its own plan, the 'Swedish Model' of herd immunity. Research has looked at the nature of media coverage and how Swedish policy was covered by the news media. Rachel Irwin, a researcher from Sweden, found there were six main themes: "(1) Life is normal in Sweden, (2) Sweden has a herd immunity strategy, (3) Sweden is not following expert advice, (4) Sweden is not following WHO recommendations (5) the Swedish approach is failing and (6) Swedes trust the government."[33] She comments that not all of the information was framed correctly. She wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal stating that media coverage has inaccurately portrayed the COVID-19 policies in Sweden and that it did not have a "herd immunity" plan.[34] Another article suggests that as other countries came up with different policies the Swedish policy model went from "bold to pariah".[35]

United Kingdom

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom

The first confirmed case in the UK, as reported by GOV.UK , was January 30, 2020.In reporting about the outbreak, British tabloid newspapers such as The Sun and the Daily Mail used language described as "fear-inducing".[36] According to Edelman's Trust Barometer, journalists were the least-trusted source for information regarding the pandemic in the UK, with 43 percent out of the surveyed trusting them to report the truth, behind government officials (48%) and "most-affected countries" (46%). This was despite conventional media being the primary source of information regarding the pandemic in the UK.[37]

A study conducted in May 2020 in association with the University of Oxford showed that the UK public is exhibiting declining trust in the government as a source of information. Only 48% rated the government relatively trustworthy, which is down from 67% six weeks earlier. Moreover, 38% of people are stating that they are concerned false or misleading coronavirus information from the government, a figure which was only 27% six weeks earlier.[38]

United States

Further information: COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

The first confirmed case in the US, as reported by the CDC, was January 22, 2020.[39] News coverage in the U.S. has been more negative than in other countries[40], but has also helped promote safety behaviors including social distancing.[41] Local news has played an important role in keeping communities informed, including in rural areas.[42]

Some journalists in the U.S. have been praised for their coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic including Ed Yong and Helen Branswell. Among media scholars, many elements of mainstream journalists' efforts to adapt to the pandemic and provide reliable information to their audience have been praised, but some have been criticized. Writing for The Atlantic, Ed Yong noted that, as the pandemic unfolded, "drawn to novelty, journalists gave oxygen to fringe anti-lockdown protests while most Americans quietly stayed home". He also faulted that they "wrote up every incremental scientific claim, even those that hadn’t been verified or peer-reviewed."[43]

President Donald Trump initially accused media outlets such as CNN of "doing everything they can to instill fear in people", a statement echoed by Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.[44] Where people get there news has played an important role in people's attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19.[45] An Axios survey, conducted between 5 and 9 March 2020, found that 62% of Republican supporters believed that the outbreak's coverage by media is exaggerated, compared to 31% of Democratic supporters and 35% of independents.[46]

Opinion hosts and guests on Fox News, a conservative media outlet, initially downplayed the disease outbreak, with some guests accusing other media outlets of overplaying the disease for political reasons.[47] One Fox Business host, Trish Regan, claimed on her show Trish Regan Primetime that coronavirus' media coverage was deliberately created by the Democratic Party as a "mass hysteria to encourage a market sell-off". On the other hand, Tucker Carlson took a much more serious position regarding the disease, criticizing other hosts which compared it with ordinary seasonal flu. Regan's show was later suspended.[48]

See also

References

  1. ^ "How News Coverage of Coronavirus in 2020 Compares to Ebola in 2018". Time. 7 February 2020. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
  2. ^ Molla, Rani (17 March 2020). "It's not just you. Everybody is reading the news more because of coronavirus". Recode. Vox Media. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  3. ^ Aslam, Faheem; Awan, Tahir Mumtaz; Syed, Jabir Hussain; Kashif, Aisha; Parveen, Mahwish (2020-07-08). "Sentiments and emotions evoked by news headlines of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0523-3. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 220398688.
  4. ^ Basch, Corey H.; Hillyer, Grace Clarke; Erwin, Zoe Meleo-; Mohlman, Jan; Cosgrove, Alison; Quinones, Nasia (August 2020). "News coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: Missed opportunities to promote health sustaining behaviors". Infection, Disease & Health. 25 (3): 205–209. doi:10.1016/j.idh.2020.05.001. PMC 7229940. PMID 32426559.
  5. ^ Abbas, Ali Haif (2020-07-03). "Politicizing the Pandemic: A Schemata Analysis of COVID-19 News in Two Selected Newspapers". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. doi:10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2. ISSN 0952-8059. PMC 7332744. PMID 33214736.
  6. ^ Hart, P. Sol; Chinn, Sedona; Soroka, Stuart (2020-10). "Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage". Science Communication. 42 (5): 679–697. doi:10.1177/1075547020950735. ISSN 1075-5470. PMC 7447862. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  7. ^ Kolluri, Nikhil L.; Murthy, Dhiraj (March 2021). "CoVerifi: A COVID-19 news verification system". Online Social Networks and Media. 22: 100123. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100123. PMC 7825993. PMID 33521412.
  8. ^ "A Voice from the frontline: the role of risk communication in managing the COVID-19 Infodemic and engaging communities in pandemic response". Journal of Communication in Healthcare. 13 (1): 6–9. 2020-01-02. doi:10.1080/17538068.2020.1758427. ISSN 1753-8068. S2CID 221054943.
  9. ^ Jurkowitz, Mark; Mitchell, Amy; Shearer, Elisa; Walker, Mason (January 24, 2020). "U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.
  10. ^ Sharma, Karishma; Seo, Sungyong; Meng, Chuizheng; Rambhatla, Sirisha; Liu, Yan (2020). "COVID-19 on social media: analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations". arXiv:2003.12309 [cs.SI]. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  11. ^ a b c "The Fake News Sociology of COVID-19 Pandemic Fear: Dangerously Inaccurate Beliefs, Emotional Contagion, and Conspiracy Ideation". Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations. 19: 128. 2020. doi:10.22381/lpi19202010. ISSN 1841-2394.
  12. ^ Garfin, Dana Rose; Silver, Roxane Cohen; Holman, E. Alison (May 2020). "The novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) outbreak: Amplification of public health consequences by media exposure". Health Psychology. 39 (5): 355–357. doi:10.1037/hea0000875. ISSN 1930-7810. PMC 7735659. PMID 32202824. S2CID 214629743.
  13. ^ "What Role Should Newsrooms Play in Debunking COVID-19 Misinformation?". Nieman Reports. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  14. ^ Ahmed, Wasim; Vidal-Alaball, Josep; Downing, Joseph; Seguí, Francesc López (2020). "COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 22 (5): e19458. doi:10.2196/19458. PMC 7205032. PMID 32352383.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  15. ^ a b Mian, Areeb; Khan, Shujhat (2020-03-18). "Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation". BMC Medicine. 18 (1): 89. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01556-3. ISSN 1741-7015. PMC 7081539. PMID 32188445.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  16. ^ "COVID: No, Coronavirus Wasn't Created in a Laboratory. Genetics Shows Why". American Council on Science and Health. 2020-09-15. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  17. ^ Reimann, Nicholas. "Some Americans Are Tragically Still Drinking Bleach As A Coronavirus 'Cure'". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  18. ^ Wen, Jun; Aston, Joshua; Liu, Xinyi; Ying, Tianyu (2020-02-16). "Effects of misleading media coverage on public health crisis: a case of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China". Anatolia. 31 (2): 331–336. doi:10.1080/13032917.2020.1730621. ISSN 1303-2917. S2CID 213455169.
  19. ^ Vazquez, Marietta. "Calling COVID-19 the "Wuhan Virus" or "China Virus" is inaccurate and xenophobic". medicine.yale.edu. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  20. ^ "COVID-19 Fact Check". COVID-19 Fact Check. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  21. ^ "COVID-19 Archives". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  22. ^ "PolitiFact | Coronavirus". www.politifact.com. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  23. ^ "COVID-19: A Canadian timeline | Canadian Healthcare Network". Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  24. ^ Glauser, Wendy (2020-02-18). "Communication, transparency key as Canada faces new coronavirus threat". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 192 (7): E171–E172. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1095846. ISSN 0820-3946. PMC 7030882. PMID 32071113.
  25. ^ "How the Coronavirus Outbreak Played out on China's Social Media". The Diplomat. 31 January 2020. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
  26. ^ "Critics Say China Has Suppressed And Censored Information In Coronavirus Outbreak". NPR. 8 February 2020. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
  27. ^ "Germany: coronavirus cases change". Statista. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
  28. ^ "Handelsblatt", Wikipedia, 2021-01-29, retrieved 2021-02-19
  29. ^ "Einen Moment bitte, die Ausgabe wird geladen..." epaper.handelsblatt.com. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
  30. ^ Boytchev, Hristio (2021-02-12). "Why did a German newspaper insist the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was inefficacious for older people—without evidence?". BMJ: n414. doi:10.1136/bmj.n414. ISSN 1756-1833.
  31. ^ "Sweden: COVID-19 reports 2020". Statista. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
  32. ^ "Sweden: COVID-19 reports 2020". Statista. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
  33. ^ Irwin, Rachel Elisabeth (December 2020). "Misinformation and de-contextualization: international media reporting on Sweden and COVID-19". Globalization and Health. 16 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00588-x. ISSN 1744-8603. PMC 7356107. PMID 32660503.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  34. ^ Irwin, Rachel E (2020-08-03). "Misleading media coverage of Sweden's response to covid-19". BMJ: m3031. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3031. ISSN 1756-1833.
  35. ^ Simons, Greg (2020-11-12). "Swedish Government and Country Image during the International Media Coverage of the Coronavirus Pandemic Strategy: From Bold to Pariah". Journalism and Media. 1 (1): 41–58. doi:10.3390/journalmedia1010004. ISSN 2673-5172.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  36. ^ "Coronavirus: how media coverage of epidemics often stokes fear and panic". The Conversation. 14 February 2020. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  37. ^ Tobitt, Charlotte (20 March 2020). "Coronavirus: Public distrust journalists despite relying on news media for daily updates, survey shows". Press Gazette. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  38. ^ Fletcher, Richard; Kalogeropoulos, Antonis; Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis (2020-06-01). "Trust in UK Government and News Media COVID-19 Information Down, Concerns Over Misinformation from Government and Politicians Up". Rochester, NY. SSRN 3633002. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  39. ^ Calgary, Open. "United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State over Time | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". data.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  40. ^ Goldstein, Steve. "U.S. media is far more pessimistic in covering the coronavirus pandemic than anyone else". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  41. ^ Jiang, Xiaoya; Hwang, Juwon; Shah, Dhavan V.; Ghosh, Shreenita; Brauer, Markus (2021-01-13). "News Attention and Social-Distancing Behavior Amid COVID-19: How Media Trust and Social Norms Moderate a Mediated Relationship". Health Communication: 1–10. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1868064. ISSN 1041-0236.
  42. ^ Kim, Eunji; Shepherd, Michael E.; Clinton, Joshua D. (2020-09-08). "The effect of big-city news on rural America during the COVID-19 pandemic". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (36): 22009–22014. doi:10.1073/pnas.2009384117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7486744. PMID 32820075.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  43. ^ Yong, Ed. "How the Pandemic Defeated America". The Atlantic. No. September 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  44. ^ Karni, Annie (28 February 2020). "Trump Criticizes Media for Coverage of Coronavirus". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
  45. ^ "Cable TV and Coronavirus: How Americans perceive the outbreak and view media coverage differ by main news source". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project. 2020-04-01. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
  46. ^ "Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to view coronavirus coverage as exaggerated". Axios. 10 March 2020. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  47. ^ Smith, David (13 March 2020). "Fox News accused of downplaying coronavirus as it moves to protect staff". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
  48. ^ Gabbatt, Adam (17 March 2020). "'We have a responsibility': Fox News declares coronavirus a crisis in abrupt U-turn". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1009128260"