Trial by media: evaluating the role of mainstream media and fact-checking agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare Pub Date : 2022-10-27 DOI:10.1108/ijhrh-07-2022-0070

Haoginlen Chongloi

{"title":"Trial by media: evaluating the role of mainstream media and fact-checking agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Haoginlen Chongloi","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-07-2022-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to critically assess the function of the media during the COVID-19 pandemic. It tries to understand how media corporations selectively polish a certain narrative against the other. It will also take into consideration the role of fact-checking agencies and its reliability in determining what is right and wrong.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study uses qualitative methods and relies on secondary data available in academic domains. In this paper, a specific case related with the COVID-19 pandemic is taken up. Conflicting accounts of health professionals both in academic and industry are compared and analysed. Professional integrity of fact-checking agencies as well goes through scrutiny.\n\n\nFindings\nAfter conducting a critical analysis, it is observed that media houses have violated certain ethics while presenting news and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without any consideration of fair presentation, the mainstream media resorted to presenting vaccine hesitancy as conspiracy and deplatformed such voice from the media. This violates one’s freedom to free speech and expression.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nIt is a viewpoint from the side of a free speech abolitionist.\n\n\nPractical implications\nPress will realize that it failed in a number of occasions to uphold and protect its ethical values.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nA study questioning the role of media during the COVID-9 pandemic is rare. In this regard, adequate literature is always a difficulty considering the amount of censorship imposed by health agencies, academic institutions and the media. This particular study is built of limited yet reliable information made available by academicians and independent health professionals. As such, the value of work which focuses on the alternative perspectives is believed to add value to health professionals, policymakers, media professionals and the general population.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-07-2022-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the function of the media during the COVID-19 pandemic. It tries to understand how media corporations selectively polish a certain narrative against the other. It will also take into consideration the role of fact-checking agencies and its reliability in determining what is right and wrong. Design/methodology/approach This study uses qualitative methods and relies on secondary data available in academic domains. In this paper, a specific case related with the COVID-19 pandemic is taken up. Conflicting accounts of health professionals both in academic and industry are compared and analysed. Professional integrity of fact-checking agencies as well goes through scrutiny. Findings After conducting a critical analysis, it is observed that media houses have violated certain ethics while presenting news and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Without any consideration of fair presentation, the mainstream media resorted to presenting vaccine hesitancy as conspiracy and deplatformed such voice from the media. This violates one’s freedom to free speech and expression. Research limitations/implications It is a viewpoint from the side of a free speech abolitionist. Practical implications Press will realize that it failed in a number of occasions to uphold and protect its ethical values. Originality/value A study questioning the role of media during the COVID-9 pandemic is rare. In this regard, adequate literature is always a difficulty considering the amount of censorship imposed by health agencies, academic institutions and the media. This particular study is built of limited yet reliable information made available by academicians and independent health professionals. As such, the value of work which focuses on the alternative perspectives is believed to add value to health professionals, policymakers, media professionals and the general population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

媒体审判:评估COVID-19大流行期间主流媒体和事实核查机构的作用

本文旨在批判性地评估新冠肺炎大流行期间媒体的功能。它试图理解媒体公司是如何有选择地对某一种叙述进行润色，以对抗另一种叙述的。它还将考虑事实核查机构的作用及其在判断对错方面的可靠性。设计/方法/方法本研究采用定性方法，并依赖于学术领域的二手数据。本文以一个与COVID-19大流行相关的具体案例为例。对学术界和工业界的卫生专业人员相互矛盾的说法进行了比较和分析。事实核查机构的职业操守也要经过审查。经过批判性的分析，我们发现，在新冠疫情期间，媒体在报道新闻和发表意见时违反了一定的道德规范。主流媒体在不考虑公平报道的情况下，将疫苗犹豫说成是阴谋，并将这种声音从媒体中移除。这侵犯了一个人的言论和表达自由。研究局限/启示这是一个言论自由废奴主义者的观点。实际意义新闻集团将意识到，它在许多场合未能坚持和保护其道德价值观。质疑媒体在COVID-9大流行期间的作用的研究很少见。在这方面，考虑到卫生机构、学术机构和媒体施加的审查力度，充分的文献总是一个困难。这项特殊的研究是建立在由院士和独立的卫生专业人员提供的有限但可靠的信息基础上的。因此，人们认为，侧重于其他观点的工作的价值可为卫生专业人员、政策制定者、媒体专业人员和一般民众增加价值。

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

International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.