{"title":"谁在主导这场辩论?比较英国报纸对COVID-19政策报道中公众、政治家和专家的代表。","authors":"Yuze Sha, Gavin Brookes","doi":"10.3138/cam-2025-0202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e20250202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is Leading the Debate? Comparing Representations of the Public, Politicians and Experts in Newspaper Coverage of COVID-19 Policies in the UK.\",\"authors\":\"Yuze Sha, Gavin Brookes\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/cam-2025-0202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e20250202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/cam-2025-0202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cam-2025-0202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Who is Leading the Debate? Comparing Representations of the Public, Politicians and Experts in Newspaper Coverage of COVID-19 Policies in the UK.
This article presents a critical discourse analysis comparing linguistic representations of the public, experts, and politicians in UK newspaper reporting on COVID-19 policies. The analysis focuses on 120 articles published between 2020 and 2022, sourced from four national newspapers representing a cross-section of political leanings and formats. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of references and quotations suggest that the public is primarily represented as a collective entity, with functional references, rather than as distinct individual actors. Moreover, although the public is the most frequently mentioned among the groups considered, their engagement is mostly conveyed through emotional expressions of vulnerability, with little representation of individual voices. In contrast, politicians are depicted as individuals with far greater agency. Public health experts, meanwhile, are represented as having a marginal role in influencing policy decisions. The analysis of direct quotations carried in the media demonstrates that the stances expressed toward policies in such quotations consistently align with the ideological orientations of the newspapers across all three social groups. In newspapers with distinct left- or right-leaning perspectives, direct quotes tend to show greater levels of policy disagreement than in less ideologically polarised publications. Given that news discourse has been found to strongly influence public perceptions of public health policies, we suggest that the public might be better served by newspaper coverage of health crises that counters the trend of prioritising political biases over evidence-based conclusions. Moreover, featuring the perspectives of the public more prominently in such coverage might enhance positive policy engagement from some sections of the public.
期刊介绍:
Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.