社交媒体的新冠肺炎信息大流行:政治夸张与传播自主

Q2 Computer Science
C. Ferré-Pavia, Karen Abrego, R. Ricardez
{"title":"社交媒体的新冠肺炎信息大流行:政治夸张与传播自主","authors":"C. Ferré-Pavia, Karen Abrego, R. Ricardez","doi":"10.5210/fm.v28i6.12470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to assess the difficulty of maintaining the interpretative autonomy of communication professionals and citizens, in the face of information about the global pandemic. At the same time, this research analyzes critically the World Health Organization’s accusation of an ’infodemic’; was it confirmed or should it be regarded as political exaggeration? An analysis was made of 15,000 tweets around the world, with more than 1,000 RTs for each one, that circulated from 6 February to 18 March 2020. The results demonstrate that it is not so much possible to speak of infodemic but of a remarkable difficulty in interpreting information, together with a preponderant weight of opinion and emotionality. Academia is responsible for disseminating concepts; corporations, for filtering ethically their content; the political class, for not hiding behind the infodemic to lower the challenge of managing the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":38833,"journal":{"name":"First Monday","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The COVID-19 infodemic in social media: Political exaggeration and communicative autonomy\",\"authors\":\"C. Ferré-Pavia, Karen Abrego, R. Ricardez\",\"doi\":\"10.5210/fm.v28i6.12470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to assess the difficulty of maintaining the interpretative autonomy of communication professionals and citizens, in the face of information about the global pandemic. At the same time, this research analyzes critically the World Health Organization’s accusation of an ’infodemic’; was it confirmed or should it be regarded as political exaggeration? An analysis was made of 15,000 tweets around the world, with more than 1,000 RTs for each one, that circulated from 6 February to 18 March 2020. The results demonstrate that it is not so much possible to speak of infodemic but of a remarkable difficulty in interpreting information, together with a preponderant weight of opinion and emotionality. Academia is responsible for disseminating concepts; corporations, for filtering ethically their content; the political class, for not hiding behind the infodemic to lower the challenge of managing the pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"First Monday\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"First Monday\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i6.12470\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Computer Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Monday","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i6.12470","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Computer Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估面对有关全球大流行的信息,保持传播专业人员和公民的解释自主权的困难。同时,本研究批判性地分析了世界卫生组织对“信息学术”的指责;这种说法得到证实了吗?还是应该被视为政治夸张?研究人员对2020年2月6日至3月18日在全球传播的1.5万条推文进行了分析,每条推文的转发数超过1000个。结果表明,它不是那么可能说信息学术,但在解释信息的一个显着的困难,连同意见和情感的优势权重。学术界负责传播概念;公司,以道德的方式过滤他们的内容;政治阶层,因为他们没有躲在信息大流行背后,以降低管理大流行的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The COVID-19 infodemic in social media: Political exaggeration and communicative autonomy
This study aims to assess the difficulty of maintaining the interpretative autonomy of communication professionals and citizens, in the face of information about the global pandemic. At the same time, this research analyzes critically the World Health Organization’s accusation of an ’infodemic’; was it confirmed or should it be regarded as political exaggeration? An analysis was made of 15,000 tweets around the world, with more than 1,000 RTs for each one, that circulated from 6 February to 18 March 2020. The results demonstrate that it is not so much possible to speak of infodemic but of a remarkable difficulty in interpreting information, together with a preponderant weight of opinion and emotionality. Academia is responsible for disseminating concepts; corporations, for filtering ethically their content; the political class, for not hiding behind the infodemic to lower the challenge of managing the pandemic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
First Monday
First Monday Computer Science-Computer Networks and Communications
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: First Monday is one of the first openly accessible, peer–reviewed journals on the Internet, solely devoted to the Internet. Since its start in May 1996, First Monday has published 1,035 papers in 164 issues; these papers were written by 1,316 different authors. In addition, eight special issues have appeared. The most recent special issue was entitled A Web site with a view — The Third World on First Monday and it was edited by Eduardo Villanueva Mansilla. First Monday is indexed in Communication Abstracts, Computer & Communications Security Abstracts, DoIS, eGranary Digital Library, INSPEC, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, LISA, PAIS, and other services.
×
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