'Are you vaccinated? Yeah, I'm immunized': a risk orders theory analysis of celebrity COVID-19 misinformation.

Q2 Social Sciences
Kimberly Field-Springer, Katie Striley, John Byerly, Nathaniel Simmons, Teryn Ferrell, Sarah Quigley
{"title":"'Are you vaccinated? Yeah, I'm immunized': a risk orders theory analysis of celebrity COVID-19 misinformation.","authors":"Kimberly Field-Springer, Katie Striley, John Byerly, Nathaniel Simmons, Teryn Ferrell, Sarah Quigley","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2024.2320984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>On 11 March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a global health pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Vaccinating populations is paramount in changing the course of a pandemic. The rapid spread of (mis) and disinformation online from celebrities, politicians, and media influencers creates a corrosion of trust in public health interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Given the importance of the spread of information during a public health crisis, the current study uses risk orders theory with a constructivist grounded theory approach to analyze an episode of a popular podcast available on YouTube, titled, 'Aaron Rodgers Tells Pat McAfee His Side of Vaccine Situation.'</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings illuminated three themes concerning COVID-19 medical interventions from celebrity discourse: (1) misinterpreting medical terminology; (2) conflating bodily autonomy and altruism; and (3) political ideology as an impetus for misinformation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The discussion offers implications for healthcare practitioners in debunking mis- and disinformation. Foremost, lack of transparency concerning autonomy, liberty, freedom, and choice from public health experts who design messages during a public health crisis creates a space for non-medical influencers to promote pseudoscience, misinformation, and disinformation. This leads to public distrust of medical experts and confuses the public's understanding of best practices based upon standard of medical evidence and care.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"317-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2024.2320984","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: On 11 March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a global health pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Vaccinating populations is paramount in changing the course of a pandemic. The rapid spread of (mis) and disinformation online from celebrities, politicians, and media influencers creates a corrosion of trust in public health interventions.

Methods: Given the importance of the spread of information during a public health crisis, the current study uses risk orders theory with a constructivist grounded theory approach to analyze an episode of a popular podcast available on YouTube, titled, 'Aaron Rodgers Tells Pat McAfee His Side of Vaccine Situation.'

Results: Findings illuminated three themes concerning COVID-19 medical interventions from celebrity discourse: (1) misinterpreting medical terminology; (2) conflating bodily autonomy and altruism; and (3) political ideology as an impetus for misinformation.

Conclusions: The discussion offers implications for healthcare practitioners in debunking mis- and disinformation. Foremost, lack of transparency concerning autonomy, liberty, freedom, and choice from public health experts who design messages during a public health crisis creates a space for non-medical influencers to promote pseudoscience, misinformation, and disinformation. This leads to public distrust of medical experts and confuses the public's understanding of best practices based upon standard of medical evidence and care.

你接种疫苗了吗?是的,我接种了":名人 COVID-19 错误信息的风险秩序理论分析。
背景:2020 年 3 月 11 日,世界卫生组织(WHO)宣布 COVID-19 为全球大流行病。为人口接种疫苗对于改变大流行病的进程至关重要。名人、政客和媒体影响者在网上迅速传播的(错误)信息和虚假信息腐蚀了人们对公共卫生干预措施的信任:鉴于公共卫生危机期间信息传播的重要性,本研究采用风险秩序理论和建构主义基础理论方法,对 YouTube 上的一集热门播客进行了分析,题为 "亚伦-罗杰斯告诉帕特-麦卡菲他对疫苗问题的看法"(Aaron Rodgers Tells Pat McAfee His Side of Vaccine Situation):研究结果揭示了名人言论中有关 COVID-19 医疗干预的三个主题:(1)曲解医学术语;(2)混淆身体自主和利他主义;(3)政治意识形态是错误信息的推动力:讨论为医疗从业人员揭穿错误信息和虚假信息提供了启示。最重要的是,公共卫生专家在公共卫生危机期间设计信息时缺乏有关自主、自由、自由和选择的透明度,这为非医疗影响者宣传伪科学、错误信息和虚假信息创造了空间。这导致了公众对医学专家的不信任,并混淆了公众对基于医学证据和护理标准的最佳实践的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信