The Relationship between COVID-19 and the Media: Measuring Current Audience Media Behavior and Reaction to COVID-19 News.

by Connor Skahill

M.A. in Media and Strategic Communication, December 2020, The George Washington University

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Arts

January 8, 2021

Thesis directed by

Sean Aday Associate Professor of Media and Public Affairs

© Copyright 2021 by Connor Skahill All rights reserved

ii Dedication

I wish to dedicate this thesis to those who dedicate their lives to fighting COVID-

19, not only the frontlines, but those who are passionate in fighting for truth and transparency across reporting and journalism, now more than ever.

iii Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge those who have played a part in all my academic studies and for supporting me through all highs and lows, and especially during the most unprecedented final semester of studies I could have anticipated.

iv Abstract of Thesis

The Relationship between COVID-19 and the Media: Measuring Current Audience Media Behavior and Reaction to COVID-19 News.

The coronavirus disease, or COVID-19, is currently taking our world by storm.

The novel respiratory and infectious disease has sickened millions and has killed 200,000 and counting in the United States alone, and it does not seem to be slowing. The coronavirus has been a topic of debate and discussion in the media since early 2020. In the beginning, the disease was not portrayed as a huge threat to the health system and economy of the United States. However, as we are almost nine months into the unprecedented quarantine, we cannot escape the coronavirus in reality and on the news.

Therefore, it is crucial for Americans to gain, maintain, and regularly consume information regarding the current status and the critical repercussions of the illness. In this paper, I will examine the role the media are playing in shaping the United States’ population understanding of the virus, as I consider disinformation, the coronavirus outlined as either a political or an economic issue, and finally, the dramatic heightening or unfair minimization of the disease. When I acknowledge that the media have a role in shaping, I allude to this problem stems to how the media frame the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is the news story positive or negative, is it accurate or misleading, is there bias?

It is important to decipher that I will be discussing media on a national scale, not focusing on local or global media in terms of the relationship. I define media as the information given and received via national television news, social media, and the

Internet as a whole. In addition, I will then argue that the media need to strengthen the reporting of the coronavirus if we are in this situation for the foreseeable future. The

v following thesis will be divided into sections focusing on skewed coronavirus coverage

(‘fake news’), how the media are distracting from the health issues of the coronavirus by transforming the illness into a domestic and foreign policy issue, and how the press is covering the virus as a partisan issue. I will look at data that shows how the American public is relying on social media at this time, not only out of boredom, but also for information and education. Thus, I argue that the information on different sites needs to be better and more reliable than ever. In my study, I will conduct an original content analysis as well as in depth interviews in hopes of understanding how the media are shaping the interviewees’ understanding of the coronavirus. Finally, with this qualitative data, there will be a concluding discussion on the overall relationship of COVID-19 and the media, and a discussion of implications from my findings.

vi Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv Abstract of Thesis ...... v List of Figures ...... viii List of Tables ...... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 4 Chapter 3: Methods ...... 32 Chapter 4: Results ...... 38 Chapter 5: Conclusion ...... 46 Bibliography ...... 48 Appendices ...... 52

vii List of Figures

1 United State’s Household Pulse Survey ...... 3 2 Internet Use across the Globe ...... 23 3 Social Media Use across the Globe ...... 23 4 Estimated U.S. Social Media Usage Increase ...... 25 5 Social Media Use Spikes During Pandemic ...... 25 6 Fact-Checking Correcting COVID-19 Falsehoods ...... 27 7 Reconfigured versus Fabrication Misinformation during COVID-19 ...... 29 8 America’s Views of the News Media during the Outbreak ...... 30

viii List of Tables

1 Statistics of COVID-19 Tweets ...... 15

2 Is the Media Creating Division on COVID-19 Health Practices? ...... 28

ix Chapter 1: Introduction

There are, unfortunately, many more levels to the impact of COVID-19 besides the numbers of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in relation to the cruel disease. Within the data in the graph below distributed by The National Center for Health Statistics, The

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, wants us, the American public, to ask ourselves, “How many people are struggling under the stresses of the pandemic? Is mental health suffering as Americans try to manage isolation, worries about jobs, and a constant stream of anxiety-producing headlines? Are they putting their future health at risk by delaying trips to the doctor or avoiding the emergency room when needed?”1 This paper will discuss how those ‘anxiety-producing headlines’ the CDC mentions, and media coverage in general, is contributing to more confusion and more hysteria during this time.

Areeb Mian and Shujhat Khan argue in “Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation” that “in the face of a pandemic, it is important for governments to be transparent, and relay clear, honest information to the public. Public confusion leaves citizens unprepared for combatting a public health crisis. Additionally, it is dangerous for politicians to politicize this pandemic. At times like this, the message from government leaders needs to be consistent so that the public can regain trust in civil servants.”2 This is a powerful way to begin an essay, for the government needs to be consistent during this time to gain trust from the public, and to reassure or educate the public in terms of what is currently happening out in their communities. The quotation provided by Mian and

Khan serves as the essence of my thesis, for I argue that the spread of misinformation, or

1 COVID-19 Coding and Reporting Guidance - National Vital Statistics System. (2020, July 24). 2 Mian, A., & Khan, S. (2020). Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation.

1 even disinformation, is undeniable at any given time, but it is truly dangerous to the

American public right now, especially during a pandemic.

Joshua Aston, Xinyi Liu and Tianyu Ying of Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research provide the background that the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China sparked a global pandemic, which the World Health

Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on the 31st of

January 2020. As a result, this crisis has attracted intense media attention. Why is that, besides the pandemic serving as a healthcare and economic disaster? The background here is important, for since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, some media outlets inappropriately labeled the coronavirus by race, using such headlines as “Chinese virus pandemonium,” and implying that “China kids should stay home.”3 The biased, racist, misleading, and hurtful media coverage inspired anger throughout the Chinese community, and it has even placed undue stress upon Chinese individuals living outside

China. Sonny Patel, Omar Moncayo, Kristina Conroy, Doug Jordan, and Timothy

Erickson of Harvard University argue that this kind of disinformation, defined as false information or rhetoric strategically intended to mislead; (such as referring to COVID-19 as ‘the Chinese virus’), is being used during the 2020 pandemic to cripple health crisis communication and response to COVID-19 for economic and political reasons.4 The authors suggest that a key tool in fixing the relationship between the media and the coronavirus is to increase transparency in messaging; I have found that this may be easier said than done.

3 Wen, J., Aston, J., Liu, X., & Ying, T. (2020). Effects of misleading media coverage on public health crisis: A case of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China. Anatolia, 31(2), 331-336. 4 Patel, S., Moncayo, O. E., Conroy, K., Jordan, D., & Erickson, T. (2020). The Landscape of Disinformation on Health Crisis Communication During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ukraine: Hybrid Warfare Tactics, Fake Media News and Review of Evidence.

2 Although my paper focuses only on the impact on the American public, it is important and troubling to understand how the coverage of the pandemic affects other communities during this moment and in the past, and why the media need to be more truthful, respectable and steadfast in this important moment.

3 Chapter 2: Literature Review

It is important to understand what we know so far on the issue, and what we do know is that there is no denying that the coronavirus pandemic has become a true global event with millions affected through their own healthcare, safety, and even employment and financial stability. And since it is such an all-encompassing issue, “the dissemination of health awareness to the public across the nation is warranted,” as the Journal of Health and Biological Sciences expressed in July 2020, months after the first cases and deaths.5

And since this was expressed in the middle of the summer, a lengthy period after the beginning of the pandemic, this proves that the issue of communication about the coronavirus to the public has been a problem not easy to fix. Is it due to the rhetoric around the disease?

Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote: “And while its [coronavirus] implications should be considered secondary to matters of health and safety, those global implications may, in the long term, prove just as consequential -- especially when it comes to the United States’ global position.”6

Campbell and Doshi recognize that the coronavirus first and foremost should be an issue of health and safety, but there is a foreign policy issue that should not be ignored, including by the news media, and indeed, may overshadow other issues that may seem more important.

Campbell and Doshi discuss how the media have truly focused on a narrative in terms of how China dealt with the crisis at the beginning, and the status of the

5 Sugavanam, S. C., & Natarajan, B. (2020). Pseudoscientific beliefs and practices in the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review of unwanted experiments attributed to social media-based misinformation afflicting the public health. 6 Campbell, K. M., & Doshi, R. (2020). The coronavirus could reshape global order.

4 relationship between America and China.7 They emphasize that China no longer sees the

United States as a superpower in terms of their global position, and how the United States views China as an untrustworthy global partner for their delay of reporting their first case of coronavirus back in November of 2019 by five weeks. The two authors end their piece by noting “ultimately, the coronavirus might even serve as a wake-up call, spurring progress on other global challenges requiring U.S.-Chinese cooperation, such as climate change. Such a step should not have been - and would not be seen by the result of the world - as a concession to Chinese power. Rather, it would go some way toward restoring faith in the future of U.S. leadership.”8 I argue it is important to understand the United

States’ relationship with a foreign country in terms of potential cooperation down the road in fighting the pandemic, but Campbell and Doshi uniquely obsess over the relationship between the United States and China, which suggests that it is the most disputed and contested problem out of the coronavirus. The article serves as a prime example of a piece that is important and educational, but how the media can skew the

American public to think about the coronavirus as a foreign affairs issue rather than a health issue. There is undeniably sometimes a spin in how the coronavirus is reported. I argue it is distracting and misleading for an audience member or media consumer to understand the coronavirus crisis through this lens that Campbell and Doshi discuss, therefore rupturing the relationship between the media and the coronavirus.

Solmaz Filiz Karabag of Linkoping University in Sweden writes: “All the health, economic and social issues will force researchers in a variety of fields, medicine, economics, business, technology, sociology and psychology, to study the crisis. By

7 Campbell, K. M., & Doshi, R. (2020). The coronavirus could reshape global order. 8 Campbell, K. M., & Doshi, R. (2020). The coronavirus could reshape global order.

5 investigating the manifold impacts and initiatives related to the coronavirus crisis, researchers will expand our understanding not only of the activities, processes, and decisions during the crisis, but also how the crisis affects and transforms global and regional economic relationships, geopolitical constellations and alliances.”9 Karabag provides support to Campbell and Doshi’s piece by offering the idea that the coronavirus is more than what it looks like on paper, and the media are not shy in showing that.

Karabag strengthens the idea that the coronavirus is not only a healthcare issue, and those political leaders and the media have put a strong emphasis on how the coronavirus impacts national economies, policies, and social activities.10 It is important for my paper to include an international perspective, in this case from Sweden, for it is vital to understand the measures other countries, especially in the European Union, are taking in regards to reporting on and discussing the coronavirus. What I find striking about this piece is that the article discusses how countries are reacting to the issue in terms of economic, political and social issues, and how some countries are more equipped in terms of supplies and healthcare needs, but there is a severe lack of how the general public in these countries are reacting and dealing with the coronavirus. This paper is almost written as such a comparison amongst the strength and weaknesses of countries reacting to the coronavirus in terms of political, social, and health needs, that it comes off as a piece of global superpower competition and a race to see which country can defeat the coronavirus first and survive the crisis.11 This is an important topic, but there is a severe lack of discussing what has worked or what has not worked in these countries thus far,

9 Karabag, S. F. (2020). An unprecedented global crisis! the global, regional, national, political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. 10 Karabag, S. F. (2020). An unprecedented global crisis! the global, regional, national, political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. 11 Karabag, S. F. (2020). An unprecedented global crisis! the global, regional, national, political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

6 the amount of cases and deaths in said countries, and how the public is dealing with these economic, political, and health issues, rather than just the leaders in these states. As mentioned, it is important to understand who are the dominant countries in terms of responding to COVID-19, and why these countries are dominant, but there is no detailed action plan listed in this article in regards to moving forward and how those on the frontlines or being deeply impacted by this disease are currently processing.

A large part of Karabag’s dissertation is summarized through the following:

“Others argue that the crisis has demonstrated the unsustainability of neoliberal globalization and will initiate a much-needed awakening to the need for crisis-proof supplies of vital goods and services, which will revitalize local industries. Many issues related to policy formation at national, regional, and local levels, corporate strategies and entrepreneurship are interesting here, specifically, how the crisis will impact globalization and deglobalization during and post-crisis time.”12 Who are the others here?

Is Karabag specifically focusing on those in the trading business or those who deal with international business? This is a great and necessary foreign perspective to bring to the table, but this paper is almost too niche in topic and too heavily focused on foreign needs that it distracts from the problem at hand, an undeniably large healthcare crisis. This type of media during this time is unhelpful, and almost harmful.

In terms of bringing this back to an United States perspective, Todd Landman and

Luca Di Gennaro Splendore write that the coronavirus is threatening one of the biggest gifts to American citizens: democracy and the conduct of a genuine and transparent

12 Karabag, S. F. (2020). An unprecedented global crisis! the global, regional, national, political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

7 election.13 However, the two authors do not believe it is a threat just in terms of how people will vote or if people will even have the ability to vote in-person on election day due to fear of crowds and the lack of social distancing, but Landman and Splendore believe the coronavirus and the domestic election have an odd relationship all in thanks to the media. Landman and Splendore describe: “mainstream media reporting, social media commentary, and ‘fake news’ have fuelled a large number of conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, debates about ‘flattening the curve through tough measures, and pleas from national health services for personal protective equipment (PPE), rapid development of a vaccine, and the deployment of emergency testing sites to manage the worst periods of the pandemic.”14 Landman and Splendore continue with: “Full democracies have a long history of legitimate elections, peaceful transfers of power between political leaders, and a strong regime of human rights protection in place that allow for the maximisation of citizen participation in the political system. Flawed democracies have many elements missing, where elections take place, but there are significant shortcomings with respect to media laws, freedom of expression, and the arbitrary use of coercion and repression to affect electoral outcomes.”15 Their perspective and understanding of the media to be sometimes flawed or misleading allows this thesis to move to the unfortunate influence of disinformation during this critical period.

Usman Bello Balarabe and Ranjit Kumar of the Department of Mass and Media

Communications of Mewar University in India wrote that the accessibility, or lack thereof, to reliable sources is the main reason why there is such an overwhelming lack of understanding and widespread misinformation when it comes to the coronavirus. They

13 Landman, T., & Splendore, L. D. G. (2020). Pandemic democracy: elections and COVID-19. 14 Landman, T., & Splendore, L. D. G. (2020). Pandemic democracy: elections and COVID-19. 15 Landman, T., & Splendore, L. D. G. (2020). Pandemic democracy: elections and COVID-19.

8 are both happy to admit that the development and the importance of social media is to not be denied as we are living in a news and information world; however, in recent years, there has been a severe increase in negativity online, and a huge surge of fake news, misinformation, and inaccurate assumptions. For example, Balarabe and Kumar discuss that “the rate at which users spread fake news, and misinformation narratives about

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is making it difficult for audiences to verify which information they come across on social media is genuine or not. Social media has changed news consumption and production behaviors profoundly by blurring the contours between professional journalists and users.”16 The authors discuss that when conducting a 2014

Facebook study, they found that 45% of news stories and posts were fake, while 26% were true. In 2017, Reuters Digital News Report conducted a survey in 36 countries and found that: “only a quarter of all respondents think social media do a good job in separating fact from fiction compared to 40% for the news media.”17 Therefore, due to this data, it is admirable that in March 2020, the World Health Organization also studied various myths, fake news and misinformation narratives about the new pandemic coronavirus. In response to their findings, the ‘WHO,’ in March, with their scientific point of view, provided a published series of in-depth information about the myths and factual narratives based off the coronavirus, and how the facts versus the misleading and inaccurate information about the symptoms, precautionary tips and causes of the coronavirus can truly influence and manipulate online users and television news watchers. This may be why Samia Tasnim, Mahbub Hossain, and Hoimonty Mazumder of the Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health wrote in May 2020 that there

16 Balarabe, U. B., & Kumar, R. Perspectives and Impacts of Social Media Fake News and Misinformation Narratives about Coronavirus (Covid-19) In India. 17 Balarabe, U. B., & Kumar, R. Perspectives and Impacts of Social Media Fake News and Misinformation Narratives about Coronavirus (Covid-19) In India.

9 needs to be law enforcement measures and intense and advanced control and removal of improper online content with no scientific basis when it comes to coronavirus. The authors argue that online hoaxes, rumors, and disinformation are creating a different stigma around the coronavirus than what should be actually perceived of the disease,

18 creating a larger and larger crisis.

Doctors Nicholas E. Ingraham and Christopher J. Tigannelli of the National

Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health write about misinformation during a crisis. Their argument is simple: misinformation occurs to a greater degree during disasters.19 There is a ‘natural human tendency’ during a crisis to find resolutions and to find answers, even when those do not exist. When people are suffering or are surrounded by anxiety and fear, they seek out news, and cling to news that minimizes this stress, whether the news is factually based or not. Fear fuels these efforts to dissipate this uncertainty. The doctors argue that healthcare workers are more vulnerable to misinformation in our current climate. Ingraham and Tigannelli note: “as the careful and curious lens, previously used to critically appraise the literature, is now blurred by their intrinsic passion to “do something.” Intentions aside, misinformation is a current public health emergency! If left unchecked, preventable patient morbidity and mortality will occur while simultaneously dismantling the remarkable ongoing efforts to defeat

COVID-19.”20 Therefore, the main point in this piece is that the unfortunate effects from misinformation can serve as the greatest threat to our ongoing fight against COVID-19, especially if frontline workers are subject to the false news.

18 Tasnim, S., Hossain, M. M., & Mazumder, H. (2020). Impact of rumors or misinformation on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in social media. 19 Ingraham, N. E., & Tignanelli, C. J. (2020). Fact versus science fiction: fighting coronavirus disease 2019 requires the wisdom to know the difference. 20 Ingraham, N. E., & Tignanelli, C. J. (2020). Fact versus science fiction: fighting coronavirus disease 2019 requires the wisdom to know the difference.

10 How should people react? How should people fight this disinformation in this time when everyone wants the answers that Doctor Ingraham and Doctor Tigannelli describe? Sonia Livingstone, a psychology professor at the London School of Economics writes that research proves that children are more observant or more interested in the news on television than parents initially think. Children especially note when and if their parents are worried about what is being portrayed on the news.21 Therefore, Livingstone suggests that families talk about what is happening in the real world occasionally to address everyone’s concerns and level of understanding. Additionally, Livingstone suggests that parents ask their children where and how they receive news, and to locate where they receive it, and to deem if it is trustworthy or not. She suggests it is never too early for informal media education to distinguish trustworthy information from misinformation. Finally, Livingstone discusses that if people want to contribute to factually based discourse about the pandemic, or if the news wants to provide clear answers to their audience, the World Health Organization and the National Health

Service are the best bet. There should be no denying of the experts in this situation.

Livingstone argues that we should continually practice to ignore unverified news sources during this time, because everyone wants to be a reporter right now.

Ico Maly of Tilburg University makes a similar argument that ‘reporters’ on the coronavirus are turning up in the most obscure places, overwhelming the media cycle.22

For example, Maly discusses a ‘Youtuber’ named Joseph Paul Watson. On March 11th

2020, Watson posted a video on the coronavirus discussing the global implications of the disease, and he argued that open, unrestrictive borders are the reason why this disease

21 Livingstone, S. (2020). Coronavirus and# fake news: what should families do? Parenting for a Digital Future, 22 Maly, C. I. (2020). The coronavirus, the attention economy and far-right junk news.

11 exists worldwide. Therefore, he is introducing an anti-globalization narrative, and again, introducing another tactic that is distracting the coronavirus and its rhetoric from its core.

He wants the coronavirus to introduce the positives, or the benefits, of closed borders. He is a known ‘Youtuber’ for producing content that either simplifies, or twists, or merges facts with fiction, which is extremely problematic during this time.23 In his videos on

Youtube, he notoriously uses facts that are isolated, and facts that are recontextualized mostly with a political spin. Watson is a prime example of false and divisive news during this time.

Paulo R. Vasconellas Silva and Luis David Castiell of Reporters in Public Health write how other sources of coronavirus news can come in the most obscure ways. There is no control on where from or how news consumers will gather information, especially during this time.24 They write about how in early February a British professor posted how he could cure COVID-19 with whiskey and honey, and this claim swept the Iranian social media sphere rapidly. Additionally, there were rumours that ethanol was a prime tool to prevent coronavirus; therefore, hundreds of people drank the toxic byproduct, and as a result, hundreds of people died as a result… all due to the misinformation posted on social media. Silva and Castiell write “the fake news on the purported remedy’s efficacy swept the country’s social networks, and the fear of COVID-19, combined with mistrust and misinformation, led thousands of people to suffer methanol poisoning.”25 This story out of Iran is an unfortunate development in how extreme false information can be, and

23 Maly, C. I. (2020). The coronavirus, the attention economy and far-right junk news. 24 Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks of narratives. 25 Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks of narratives.

12 how it can be believed without any form of doubt. Again, this is how the media are making the coronavirus worse than it already is.

Silva and Castiell continue that the typical individual who is an avid social media user selects the information, celebrities and networks of expertise, or fallacies, to follow, that will lead to whether the user decides to believe and support a fact, or essentially be misled. The authors note that in recent years, there has been a major debate on “whom does fake news serve?”26 They continue: “We know what such news is made of: narratives coinciding with a certain reality, of which they take control for purposes of credibility, although within a system of values and representations that disorient and stratify contagious information, defining and simplifying recognizable scenarios and above all enticing the reader with a twisted modality of ethical justice.”27 With this quotation, they then question the integrity and responsibility of the government. The government needs to promote ‘references of safety’ and rely on the news that will benefit

‘society’s genuine concerns and needs.’28 However, they believe there is no denying that we are currently living in a fake news world, especially during the coronavirus pandemic, and the government is not the most reliable mechanism to dismantle misinformation.

How is COVID-19 and the misinformation that follows being analyzed on

Twitter? Karishma Sharma, Sungyong Seo, Chuizheng Meng, Sirisha Rambhatla, and

Yan Liu of the University of Southern California discuss how social distancing has created a stronger reliance on the information available online. Sharma, Seo, Meng,

Rambhatla, and Liu work to identify posts that are truthful and rival those posts that are

26 Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks of narratives. 27 Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks of narratives. 28 Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks of narratives.

13 propaganda. The authors work to essentially distinguish legitimate versus false news, and truthful versus misleading, clickbait content, specifically in such a time when they believe social media users are obsessive over grasping news with a touch of a button. The

University of Southern California professors believe there is no denying the public is generally easily manipulated into believing false information, which can be very detrimental to public health and have dire consequences, which is exactly what we saw

29 with the Silva and Castiell report.

29 Sharma, K., Seo, S., Meng, C., Rambhatla, S., Dua, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). Coronavirus on social media: Analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations.

14

Table 1 above, provided by the team at the University of Southern California, showcases details about the tweets collected and the user accounts associated with the tweets.30 The next table, Table 2, shows geolocation, and what information is being spread on social media on the country-level. The authors argue that since the pandemic is at a global scale, social media analysis for other platforms and languages is critical

30 Sharma, K., Seo, S., Meng, C., Rambhatla, S., Dua, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). Coronavirus on social media: Analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations.

15 towards minimizing misinformation.31 The second important factor is that minimizing misinformation is easier said than done. However, it is interesting to see how many tweets were about the coronavirus, understandably so at its beginning stages, as many users were supposedly looking for information during the scary and uncertain time. A very small percentage were verified users, such as healthcare professionals, well-known professors and those who study healthcare in an academic setting, and finally, political leaders. The majority, however, were laypeople, people who were learning, consuming and maybe reporting what they hear. Some may have even been people purposely reporting misinformation to cause greater chaos.

Steffen Steinert of Ethics and Information Technology argues that a problem of posting on social media is sometimes users do so out of pure emotion. Therefore, he begins his essay with the point that “people usually care deeply about their health and the health of the people close to them. People also care about job security and personal freedom. Many people perceive the current Coronavirus pandemic as a threat to all of these things. With social distancing and quarantine as legal requirements in many countries, freedom is limited, likely leading people who are less afraid of health consequences to experience other negative emotions like anger or frustration.”32 In conclusion, he believes due to the understood emotional reaction to the coronavirus, social media can offer an outlet where people post their feelings and thoughts in a way that outlines the threat to be greater than it is. We can definitely argue the other end of the spectrum, as well. The users who feel the coronavirus is being overblown, or is taking away their rights and liberties, can also express that on social media, and can soon

31 Sharma, K., Seo, S., Meng, C., Rambhatla, S., Dua, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). Coronavirus on social media: Analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations. 32 Steinert, S. (2020). Corona and value change. The role of social media and emotional contagion.

16 believe that, maybe the pandemic is overblown, especially if the user relies heavily on social media for information. Steinert notes that “in trying times, social media is a popular medium for many people to share their thoughts and emotions.”33 He discusses the 2004 terrorist attack in Spain, and the Boston Marathon bombing, where in both instances, people flocked to social media to share their grief, and their overall thoughts on the terrorist attacks and share their political and social views on what should be done to those who committed the crime. This created an overwhelming cycle of different beliefs, and different political attitudes agreeing and fighting via social media, while, at the same time, many users were just using social media as an outlet to grieve. Therefore, it would be ideal for the national media to be strategic in terms of how to respond to the pandemic in their coverage by acknowledging the needs and the sentiments of the audience.

Mark Anthony Camilleri of the University of Edinburgh looks at how to strategically communicate during the coronavirus pandemic. Camilleri acknowledges how COVID-19 has affected how institutions and organizations communicate about healthcare, politics, and socio-economic needs with internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, and the general public.34 These groups should be, as Camilleri argues, engaging in conversations to restore faith, trust and stability, in a clear, straightforward, and frequent manner. In a government sense, there has been useful information, in

Camilleri’s opinion, on social distancing and hygienic practices, in partnership with health authorities, as in the World Health Organization, that will benefit the American public. Camilleri interestingly notes that this is extremely different to former health crises

33 Steinert, S. (2020). Corona and value change. The role of social media and emotional contagion. 34 Camilleri, M. A. Strategic dialogic communication through digital media during COVID-19 crisis.

17 years or decades ago when organizations, government-affiliated or not, would not respond to the needs of the general public in a timely manner, if at all.

Dana Rose Garfin, along with Roxane Cohen Silver, and E. Alison Holman of the

University of California, Irvine write in “The Novel Outbreak: Amplification of Public

Health Consequences by Media Exposure” that health threats can reach beyond their origin, or they can just be made even worse than they already are. The three psychologists believe this occurs due to the media news cycle that is 24/7 that can inaccurately estimate the threat of a community, whether that is by belittling or expanding it.35 For example, Rose discusses how the threat of Ebola in 2014 was quite low for the United States, but a sample of U.S. residents proved that the majority of

Americans were fearful of Eblola not due to its potential threat to our domestic soil, but due to the distress and worry that would come from the 24/7 Ebola-related stories on the news. Rose even argues that a study in 2001 proved that a great number of Americans expressed posttraumatic stress from the September 11th terrorist attacks due to the media coverage. These Americans were not even in New York City or Washington, D.C. or directly knew someone affected, but they were affected by the constant news coverage which led to further stress and further anxiety, especially about future potential terrorist attacks.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in February of this year, “we are not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.”36 Sylvie Brand, director of Infectious Hazards Management at WHO’s

35 Garfin, D. R., Silver, R. C., & Holman, E. A. (2020). The novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) outbreak: Amplification of public health consequences by media exposure. 36 Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April 15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate News and Information about Coronavirus.

18 Health Emergencies Program and architect of WHO’s strategy to counter the ‘infodemic’ risk states: “we know that every outbreak will be accompanied by a tsunami of information, but also within this information you always have misinformation and rumors.”37 Brand and her team looked at survey data collected between March and April

2020 to understand how citizens of six different countries are accessing COVID-19 news and information, and whether they find their news sources to be reliable or not. Their respondents were scattered across age, gender, political lines, and levels of education.

Brand first notes that social media and television use has drastically increased in usage compared to other years, and that news organizations are the single most widely identified source of news and information for the coronavirus, according to the respondents in the six countries. However, even though news viewership has increased, the majority of respondents say they do not rely on it for true information. Specifically, in the United States, Brand reports that individuals are concerned about what they see as false or misleading information from news organizations, and from the national government. Those on the left are concerned about the right-wing government, and many are concerned over misinformation from individual political leaders.38 On the other hand,

Americans have expressed high levels of trusts in scientists, doctors, and other health experts, or simply organizations that these experts are continuously promoting for valid information, as in the WHO.

Brand and her team at the WHO show that media platforms have responded during the last several months to the general’s need for immediate news at their fingertips. For instance, Facebook introduced a ‘COVID-19 Information Center,’ where

37 Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April 15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate News and Information about Coronavirus. 38 Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April 15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate News and Information about Coronavirus.

19 Google now provides an ‘SOS Alert’ in terms of locating resource centers for the virus, and Twitter presents coronavirus-related information in a series of Tweets from national and local news media outlets for the specific user.39 Brand recognizes that fortunately, the public is aware of how there can be misinformation on the sites just named. The article states: “given these problems [of misinformation’ and previous research showing that many people think of what they see as poor journalism and hyper-partisan political propaganda as parts of wider misinformation problems, people are often very worried about the authenticity and veracity of much of the information they come across online.”40 They end their article by saying the most important thing in all of this, in terms of the relationship between the media and the coronavirus, is that people learn how to effectively and efficiently respond to the disease. Brand understands that the news is not the only factor that affects one’s understanding and response to COVID-19, though.

Other important influences include their socio-economic status, views of family and friends, and the communities they live in. The question remains, though, how can media help? This question inspired the next section of my research.

Authors J. Scott Brennen, Felix M. Simon, Philip N. Howard, and Rasmus Kleis

Nielsen of The Reuters Institute and The University of Oxford argue that independent media fact-checkers and the actions by platforms and news organizations play an important role in addressing coronavirus misinformation.41 Fact-checkers, for instance, can help sort false from true content. Also, fact-checkers can provide an analysis of misinformation while helping organizations and platforms identify problematic material.

39 Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April 15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate News and Information about Coronavirus. 40 Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April 15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate News and Information about Coronavirus. 41 Brennan, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020, April). Types, Sources and Claims of Covid-19 Misinformation.

20 However, the author’s show that when questioning misinformation, one can also be questioning the legitimacy and competence of public authorities and health leaders, which the authors recognize as a slippery slope. However, the team recognizes through survey research that misinformation from public authorities easily manifests itself to social media or television news or vice versa.42 Therefore, it is a dangerous cycle, but there is no set ‘cure.’ They recognize there is too much of a risk to not combat misinformation. Brennen, Simon, Howard, and Nielson conclude that addressing the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 is a coordinated effort, not only by those in the media industry, but public authorities and the public itself.

42 Brennan, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020, April). Types, Sources and Claims of Covid-19 Misinformation.

21 List of Figures and Tables

It is important for me to analyze surveys and data that showcases the relationship between the media and the coronavirus pandemic, and ultimately, how the general public is affected. I study Pew Research Center and Gallup, and various academic and scientific sources that prove there is an undeniable correlation, and that there has been a strong influence from the media on how the general public understands and emotionally reacts to COVID-19.

22

23 In a 2019 Pew Research Center study, there is a discussion on how people in the

United States and around the world are turning to the internet to do their work and stay connected, which correlates to how the COVID-19 outbreak forces people to stay home and away from the office and crowds. An average of 77% of citizens across 34 countries use the internet at least occasionally, or own an internet-enabled smartphone, according to the Pew Research Center survey above. More specifically, younger people, and citizens with higher incomes and those in wealthier countries are more likely to be digital technology users. Many people surveyed argued that they do use social media, but social media usage is not overwhelmingly popular in their daily lives, and these respondents came from economically advanced nations, as in Germany and Japan. While social media use falls below general Internet use in 30 of 34 countries surveyed, a majority in most countries say they use some mechanism of social media. It was important to understand that I looked to 2019 data on media usage, and again I define media as television news, social media, and the internet, to understand how the world, yet Americans were specifically communicating, spreading news, and educating themselves on current events.

I want to see how this is adapted to the COVID-19 world. It is important to understand social media usage as a whole since we have learned social media, and the online sphere, has been impacted by COVID-19.43

43 Schumacher, S., & Kent, N. (2020, April 2). 8 charts on Internet use around the world as countries grapple with COVID-19.

24

In a recent March study distributed by Statistica of social media users, 43.1 percent of respondents stated that if confined to their homes during the coronavirus, they

25 would use social media platforms more during that period. Instagram, YouTube and

Facebook are just examples of these popular social platforms that users were estimating to increase usage during physical distancing at home.44 This should not be surprising at all, but also indicates that people may be glued to their phones more than typical, and as a result, these respondents will have the opportunity to consume news via these outlets more than typical. The study from Axios shows a similar trend. Social media usage increased between January and April, and it is safe to assume that trend increased past

45 April since the pandemic and the corresponding quarantine period has persisted.

44 Clement, J. (2020, June 19). Estimated U.S. social media usage increase due to coronavirus home isolation 2020 45 Fischer, S. (2020, April 24). Social media use spikes during pandemic. Axios.

26

Why is this data in terms of social media usage important? Because it shows that users are more susceptible to receive false information on these platforms due to increased contact. A study from Nature shows how there has been a huge emergence of fact-checkers during the pandemic due to the corresponding emergence of falsehoods on social media in regards to pandemic information.46 Note, for instance, that there is a range of categories of misinformation between January and May, including but not limited to, information on causes, cures, spreads, symptoms, serving a prime example of

46 Nature Editorial. (2020, May 29). Coronavirus in charts: the fact-checkers correcting falsehoods.

27 how the media has made the pandemic even worse by providing false information on topics.

Then there is the confounding issue of partisanship. Are American individuals reacting differently to the lack of fact-checking, or news on social media, based on their party lines?

The difference in facemask usage between independents with a slight liberal news bias versus independents with a conservative news bias drastically increased, from nine points between early April and early May to 38 points from the middle of June.

Given the growing importance that public health officials place on face mask usage due to mounting evidence of its effectiveness in preventing the spread of the virus, this difference is important and inspiring. However, there is still such a difference between liberal, mixed, and conservative. Are conservatives contributing to the poor dialect on social media that is lessening the threat of the pandemic, and are conservatives listening?47

47 Ritter, B. R. B. A. Z. (2020, November 3). Is the Media Creating Division on COVID-19 Health Practices?

28

The chart above comes from The Reuter Institute and the University of Oxford reading discussed earlier.48 Much of the misinformation in the study is understood to be spun, twisted, or reworked, rather than completely fabricated. Brennen, Simon, Howard and Nielsen found that reconfigured data saw higher engagement than engagement that was completely false or of a satire or parody. The data comes from the team collecting a sample of 225 news stories or videos related to coronavirus, in partnership with First

Draft News, an organization that specializes in fighting false news online.

48 Brennan, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020, April). Types, Sources and Claims of Covid-19 Misinformation.

29

30 Finally, I would like to draw attention to the “working for the benefit of the public” section of the Pew Research Center study above. The study was conducted in early May, a solid two months into the pandemic and quarantine. When asked to evaluate the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak at that point thus far, Americans were more likely than not to think that the news media are fulfilling four key roles.

Recognize that since all of the categories do not add up to 100 percent, these categories include a hefty percentage that neither of the statements reflect their views, which is not positive. For example, 59 percent of Americans say the news media are providing the public with the general information they need about COVID-19, in comparison with about a quarter who disagree. While nearly half of U.S. adults say the media’s COVID-

19 coverage has been largely accurate, almost a quarter say it has been largely inaccurate.

The remaining 27 percent feel indifferent.49 Overall, this is not a positive representation of the media coverage during this time, and the relationship between the public opinion and the media as a whole.

49 Gottfried, J., Walker, M., & Mitchell, A. (2020, May 8). Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak.

31 Chapter 3: Methods

My main research questions ask if the media are playing a significant role in the shaping of the United States population’s understanding of the virus, and if so, is that role positive or negative? Through my literature review, I have shown that the media, are creating a ‘media circus’ by my personal definition, means that the media are making the issue of the coronavirus more complicated than it already is by different mediums framing it differently, which is ultimately distracting from the true issue at hand and creating more uncertainty and mistrust within the American community, as well as fostering a ruptured relationship between the American public and the media. Therefore, I wanted to understand this hypothesis through primary research, and to understand if peers in my inner circle feel the same way as the respondents in the other scientific research I studied.

Research Design

The main relationship within this study is between the general United States public and the media. Specifically, I want to understand the public’s relationship, whether strong or poor, with the media; therefore, this measurement of reliability and trust serves as my dependent variable. I am interested to comprehend the following: does the public believe fake news or disinformation? Does the public see the coronavirus as a health-care crisis, or as an economic or political issue, and how did the media shape this interpretation? Overall, do the media help the audience in understanding the issue? The independent variable is the type of media, for I want to understand who is seeking out media from what source and if one is more prone to misinformation, and if the other is more well-equipped with factual, helpful information.

Interviews

32 I was interested in engaging in my own original research to understand how the general public feels about the news delivering appropriate information about COVID-19, as I cannot realistically measure the whole United States population. However, I believe my own demographic represents a diverse enough group due to the self-identified demographics below. My intent is that the interviews will support my overall research question, are the media playing a significant role in shaping the United States’ population in understanding the virus? The goal was to discuss this topic with a wide range of individuals across different locations, across different genders, across different ages, and across different professional and academic backgrounds or affiliations through video interviews. I believe I have a wide network in terms of diversity; therefore, I will not need to participate in random sampling. I practiced convenience sampling.50 The evident negatives of practicing convenience sampling can include under-representation in sample size, and therefore, fear of generalization. Of course, there are many more individuals facing COVID-19 in the given moment; however, I thought the positives of convenience sampling outweighed the negative. It was inexpensive, I felt I could have conversations of honesty, candor, and comfort, and my participants were fortunately available with a

100 percent rate; something I would not have seen with random sampling.

Therefore, I spoke with 40 individuals, and then compared their results to the data shown earlier in this piece. I used the month of October 2020 to conduct the study and then I used early November 2020 as a time to analyze the data, and to see if any personal narratives or striking notes emerge in terms of the relationship between COVID-19 and the media, and the public’s understanding of the coronavirus.

Priorities

50 Edgar, Thomas W. (2017). Research Methods for Cyber Security

33 Again, to reiterate, I wanted my interviewees’ experience to revolve around the following questions: what is your relationship with the media? How do you understand the relationship between media and COVID-19, media and disinformation, and COVID-

19 and disinformation? And finally, are the media reacting to the coronavirus in a way that is admirable or is it making the coronavirus worse? A participant was only interviewed once. In late September 2020, I contacted my respondents via email or via text message. Interviews were completed by October 11th, 2020. The 40 interviewees who agreed to the study identified as the following:

Current Occupation

• 10 percent of interviewees currently work in the medical field.

• 15 percent currently work in a government-affiliated role.

• 17.5 percent currently act as educators or are active graduate students.

• 22.5 percent currently work in media.

• The remainder work in fields across finance, hospitality, energy or are

retired.

Age

• 30 percent of interviewees are the age of 30 or older.

• 70 percent are the age of 29 or younger.

Place of Residence/Place Where He or She Quarantines

• 15 percent of interviewees live in Virginia.

• 20 percent live in the Midwest.

• 22.5 percent live in the New York Metropolitan area.

• 30 percent live in the DMV area.

34 • The remainder live in various parts of the country, including, but not

limited to: California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Tennessee, and

Texas.

Political Affiliation

• 55 percent of interviewees said they intend to vote Republican in 2020 or

have definite knowledge that an immediate family member will do so.

• 45 percent said they intend to vote Democrat in 2020 or have definite

knowledge that an immediate family member will do so.

News Consumption

• 45 percent of interviewees said they consume on average 20 hours of news

per week.

• 30 percent said they consume on average 15 hours of news per week.

• 15 percent said they consume on average 10 hours of news per week.

• 10 percent said they consume less than 5 hours of news per week.

To clarify, I gained access to these participants through personal and professional relationships. By conducting and analyzing primary data, I believe my research will be more original, and can either support or oppose the data from my literature review. I emailed or communicated via text message with these 40 participants, and asked them the following questions for self-identification. I believe self-identified industry, age, place of residence, political affiliation, and news consumption are the key elements in understanding the core of my focus group as I believe these are the true factors in understanding the news cycle and in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship with the media. I initially asked if he or she would be voting Republican or

35 Democrat in the upcoming election, but five of the interviewees were uncomfortable with answering this question; therefore, I reframed. I wanted to ask the political affiliation and news consumption question before the actual interview to ensure my research represented a fair group.

I asked the following questions over a 20-minute interview:

1. Generally speaking, do you believe misinformation or fake news is a

current issue? Why or why not.

2. Do you willingly seek out information regarding COVID-19? Where is the

first resource you would check? Online news (articles or social media), or

television (CNN, Fox News)?

3. Do you believe there is a relationship between the media and how

COVID-19 is reported or understood, whether that be across television or

social media? Depending on how you answered the first question in this

interview, do you think disinformation or fake news play a role?

4. Overall, how trustworthy do you believe COVID-19 media content is? Do

you practice fact-checking?

5. Has your media usage and/or consumption decreased or increased or

stayed the same since the beginning of the pandemic? Is there a reason?

6. Without the 24/7 news cycle, do you think our pandemic issue would be

different than it currently is? Elaborate.

The questions were reframed for clarity if needed. I attempted to avoid other parts of discussion during this conversation to keep these six questions consistent and fair, but if a common theme or follow-up question was introduced, my intent was to report this in

36 the data, and I did note these in the results section. The intent was for all of the interviews to take place over video interviews, due to the pandemic and location of some of the interviewees; however, 37 of the 40 interviews took place over video due to lack of connection and resources for the other three respondents. All 40 interviewees agreed to my open-ended questions prior to the conversation.

I acknowledge that it is important to look at both quantitative and qualitative data, which is why you will see that I reported my results numerically, and included personal anecdotes or narratives that are outstanding to report. For instance, the data findings and an interview question of mine focus on the understanding of those watching television versus the number who watch television and trust the media, and if that has changed from pre-pandemic to now. I want to include this to see what has changed and what has stayed the same. It is important to look at qualitative data - personal anecdotes of those who now do not trust the news and, or how the media has made an individual’s pandemic experience worse, whether that be downplaying the physical and mental crisis behind it, or making the health crisis too much of a political or economic issue, as discussed in my literature review. I believe I received this information through my interviews.

37 Chapter 4: Results

I completed all 40 interviews via phone by the evening of Sunday, November 1,

2020. The average interview length was 18 minutes. The results are below with outstanding thoughts for each question.

Question 1

In my first question, I asked a simple yes or no question of ‘do you believe misinformation or fake news is a current issue?’ See chart above for percentage representation. 38 of my 40 respondents said misinformation or fake news is a current issue. Therefore, there are two respondents who said that misinformation or fake news is not an issue and these two respondents identify themselves as Democrat, they are both in the 30 and older age range, and they both consume less than 5 hours of news per week.

When asked to elaborate, the two respondents who said it is not an issue believe and agree on the idea that ‘fake news’ was a term generated early within the Trump administration and it is solely a phrase Trump uses to describe news against him and his team. The two respondents see it as a political ploy rather than there actually being a threat of fake news or misinformation on social media or television. The two respondents never actually worry about consuming news that is false, whereas the remainder of respondents consider their sources and look at a multitude of sources for information confirmation and clarification, especially now more than ever before.

Question 2

I wanted to understand if those in my study willingly research COVID-19 information, and if so, where from. All of my respondents said they seek out information regarding COVID-19, whereas this information may be about symptoms, testing

38 locations, number and death tallies, and vaccine updates. 10 participants said they mainly get their news from television news, 25 respondents said they mainly get their news from social media, and the remainder said it was a combination of both, and even would rely on news from word of mouth. I was surprised that only 5 of my respondents seek out information from a combination, whereas I feel I fit in that category myself. The five respondents in this category are in the 29 and younger age group, work in media, and identify within the Democratic Party. There was no clear demographic trend amongst the other 35 who chose mainly between television and news, rather than the older in age, the more likely they were to watch television and not use social media. This was not shocking to me. However, as I mentioned, there were no clear trends amongst political affiliation, occupation, or amount of news consumption per week.

Question 3

29 respondents said that there is a relationship between the media and COVID-19 and how it is reported and understood, whether that be through the media overdramatizing the disease, or undermining it. These 29 respondents all agreed that the media have a huge role in controlling the narrative about the pandemic, and educating the general public. Interestingly enough, the two respondents who said fake news or misinformation is not an issue from Question 1 were not represented in the 29 respondents who acknowledged a relationship.

Question 4

Next it was important for me to understand if my participants believed that

COVID-19 information is trustworthy outside of the general understanding of fake news and misinformation that question one was inquiring. 24 respondents said that COVID-19

39 content is mostly trustworthy, whereas the remainder believe it is often informative and often trustworthy, yet can be undermined, overdramatized, or skewed as an economic or political issue as I mentioned prior. For example, one respondent who said COVID-19 information can be undermined believed this is through a really short segment on

COVID-19 with not much depth or call to action, and by a politician’s or newscaster’s rhetoric on the positive outlook of the disease rather than negative. The respondent who believed the news is overdramatized noted examples of headlines he/she saw that were to entice panic and uncertainty. Interestingly enough, the individual who mentioned how the news unfairly undermines the coronavirus identifies as Democratic or has a family member who does so, whereas the one who mentions how the news will unnecessarily introduce panic, identifies as Republican or has a family member who does so, which is representative of how there is a true political divide in response to the pandemic. More specifically, four of these 24 respondents believed that news regarding COVID-19 was not trustworthy in the beginning of the pandemic for there were a lot of contradictory and puzzling information since the disease was very new and not as thoroughly studied, but these four respondents believe content has gotten more and more trustworthy and reliable as time has passed. The four respondents here represent a variety in demographics.

In terms of the belief in fact-checking, nine of the 40 respondents participate in this activity. They all similarly defined fact-checking coronavirus news in terms of checking a multitude of sources from health officials and resources, seeking information from health professionals they know personally, or simply by consuming more news and scrolling further on social media to develop a well-rounded idea or opinion. Interestingly, these nine respondents describe themselves as Democrats or living in a Democratic

40 household. Four of the remainder participants said they had never heard of the idea of fact-checking or thought it was a practice that was ‘impractical’ and ‘wasteful.’ These four respondents describe themselves as Republicans or living in a Republican household. Therefore, it is fair for me to assume that fact checking is a practice that is differently understood and acknowledged regarding to party lines.

Question 5

To understand how media usage and consumption has changed since the beginning of the pandemic, I learned that 33 respondents said they researched information more frequently in the beginning of the pandemic (from March to May), and come early summer, these participants started to not seek out information as much due to mental health reasons. It is important to note, and interesting to note, that all 33 respondents mentioned the phrase ‘mental health’ and gave the reasons of stress and of anxiety of why they do not consume as much news. I never mentioned mental health or anxiety in my question; all I asked was why their behavior changed. I found that a heavy majority mentioning that mental health is an issue in all of this was astounding, notable, and frankly, harrowing and upsetting. The 33 respondents now will from time to time seek out their information, but they, sometimes, find that they will learn of information unprompted through friends and family, or just by naturally watching television or using social media for other reasons. For example, two of the respondents, aged 30 and over, said they will watch The Today Show for stories about the election and then there will be a coronavirus story that they did not necessarily actively seek, and three of the respondents, aged 29 and below, said they will use TikTok or Twitter for social purposes, but naturally stumble upon COVID-19 news. Though there is a divide in terms of

41 television versus social media consumption according to age, there were a lot of demographics represented in the 33 participants who acknowledged their consumption has decreased due to mental health.

Question 6

37 of the respondents believe that without the 24/7 news cycle from a variety of sources, our pandemic issue would be different, with 18 of these 37 saying the pandemic would not be as severe without the news, and the remaining 19 saying the pandemic would be worse without the constant information we are receiving from the news. It was interesting to see this view was basically 50/50. Out of the 37 respondents who said the pandemic would not be as severe or would be worse without the news, as a side note, 29 of them said that they believe fake news or disinformation has been worse in the year

2020 than any year prior, and they blame the election, but mostly blame the coronavirus pandemic. These were the exact same 29 respondents who said that there is a relationship between the media and COVID-19 and how it is reported and understood, whether that be through the media overdramatizing the disease, or undermining it. These participants believe there has never been so much uncertainty regarding a current event, and they believe the media are completely to blame.

Back to question six as a whole, the remaining three respondents do not believe the 24/7 news cycle has or has had any effect on the pandemic for they believe COVID-

19 is a health care issue first and foremost, and would not be any different, whether less or more severe, with or without the news cycle. These three respondents identified as

Republican and all three are in the 30 and older age group.

Takeaways

42 The trends I see from my interviews include the following:

1. The older in age, the more likely they are to consume television news. There is

the same story here with younger age groups and social media consumption.

2. Those who affiliate as or live in a Republican household believe the media are

overdramatizing the coronavirus issue, whereas in a Democratic situation, there is

a belief that the news is simplifying it. In addition, those who are more aligned

with the Republican party are more likely to believe the news has had no impact

on the coronavirus, and vice versa, suggesting a lack of relationship between the

two. However, more than half of the participants acknowledged that different

media stations across CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Good Morning America, The

Today Show, -- stations or programs that were mentioned by my participants, --

are discussing the coronavirus differently.

3. I asked myself during my literature review and data analysis the following

question: “Are American individuals reacting differently to the lack of fact-

checking, or news on social media, based on their party lines?” and due to my

research through these interviews, the answer definitely seems to be ‘yes.’

4. More than half of the participants who identify working in media get their news

from a combination of resources.

5. The seven respondents who believe their news consumption has stayed the same

since the beginning of the pandemic are in government, policy or media related

fields. They did not represent students, nurses, doctors, financial consultants and

retirees, for these were the occupations that called to ‘mental health’ being a

reason why they are decreasing their time with the media. I wonder if their

43 occupation or day-to-day plays a role in how they digest news and the frequency

they do so, or frankly, in other words, there may be no choice in how they

consume media due to their profession -- for example, working on Capitol Hill as

a press intern, working at a major publication in New York City.

6. I did not explicitly mention any specific newscast or newscaster, but notable

individuals of interest to whom my respondents remarked as reliable, included:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Elect Joe Biden, Vice President Elect Kamala

Harris, Reed Abelson of The New York Times, James Hamblin of The Atlantic.

There was no mention of President Donald Trump, but there were mentions of

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany by respondents who denounced the

intelligence and authority for Dr. Anthony Fauci, which heightens the idea that

the coronavirus can be framed differently across media as a bipartisan issue.

7. I did not see any notable trends across geographical locations of the interviewees.

Where I thought I would find that more urban-located participants would have

different opinions on the coronavirus and the media versus those in either rural or

suburban areas; however, this was not the case whatsoever. I also wrongfully

assumed the older participants would be more worried about contracting COVID-

19 themselves, but the worry of getting sick is across the board and is certainly

not age dependent. However, five respondents noted how they were not worried

about COVID-19 at all in March or April for they thought the news labeled it as a

disease only the elderly could get sick from. But as these five respondents have

become more informative, they are just as worried as someone in an older age

group.

44 8. It was interesting to me how only 29 respondents acknowledged a direct

relationship between the media and the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas 37

acknowledged that the pandemic would be different without the media, whether

better or worse. When I asked two participants why they felt the pandemic would

be different without the media, but why they also thought there is no relationship

between the two, they acknowledged that yes, the pandemic would be different in

the sense of less ‘fake news’ and confusion over the disease if the media sphere

was not as encompassing, but the severity of the disease is not due to the media or

any wrongdoing they are committing. I would argue, and others did as well, that

the media can undermine or overdramatize certain aspects of the disease, which

then correlates to how people act day-to-day in response to COVID-19 either in

self protection, social settings, or conversations and rhetoric.

9. Please refer to Appendix A for the data from my interviews.

45 Chapter 5: Conclusion

My study reveals a notable relationship between the media and the coronavirus.

The coronavirus is an awful disease affecting millions. As it is considered either severe or not as severe in the given moment, the media covers it in terms of quantity of stories, but not necessarily in an appropriate and adequate manner. I found in my study and literature analysis that different mediums provide different outlooks on the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was not much discussion in terms of compare and contrast. My intent in my research is to show the comparison amongst different media outlets, and what one outlet did stronger or more appropriate than the other through my commentary, and ultimately, inspire caution, yet clarity, to those seeking out information on the coronavirus pandemic daily. Through extensive research and original research, there is a problem in terms of how the media are handling coronavirus coverage and how the general public is reacting.

I asked myself: are the media playing a significant role in shaping the United

States’ population in understanding the virus? As suggested through primary and secondary research, the media coverage during this crisis has been problematic. I am suggesting that this media coverage and how it is being unintentionally or deliberately framed, in the time of COVID-19, is contributing to more confusion, more stress, more anxiety, and therefore, more mistrust in terms of the relationship between the media and the people. Social media has also often exacerbated these problems. Meanwhile, different television channels have a different sense of transparency and usefulness, politicians and media users are using platforms to create COVID-19 as an economic or social problem, diminishing the healthcare core of the problem, and therefore, in my opinion, making the

COVID-19 crisis even larger. It is a dangerous time for the media.

46 We see through Pew Research Center, Gallup, and Axios just to name a few, that misleading content is more prevalent than ever. The problem with this is that social media usage and television consumption has increased dramatically since the beginning of the pandemic, according to Axios. Therefore, individuals are more susceptible to this disinformation due to our 24/7-news cycle. Additionally, we have seen a bias between liberal versus conservative coverage, and therefore, liberal and conservative understanding of the coronavirus, and I saw that firsthand within my original study with a handful of my participants noting differences in their understanding and emotional takeaway of the coronavirus and its coverage and headlines, and their participation in fact-checking, and I believe this difference comes from the core of political division.

The coronavirus has revealed how the general public reacts to times of crisis, but from my original study it is clear that the coronavirus helped or continues to help uncover the relationship between a healthcare crisis and the media, as well as how the general public is affected by it.

I am interested to see what happens in regard to the relationship between the media and the coronavirus in the months to come, especially as we see cases getting worse, an upcoming new administration, and hopefully, a vaccine in months to come.

Will the relationship continue to diminish or will it actually begin to flourish? It is hard to predict, but I can predict that audience behavior will continue to change as we get into more and more weeks and months of this pandemic.

47 Bibliography

Balarabe, U. B., & Kumar, R. Perspectives and Impacts of Social Media Fake News and

Misinformation Narratives about Coronavirus (Covid-19) In India.

Brennan, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020, April). Types,

Sources and Claims of Covid-19 Misinformation. Factsheet - Reuters Institute

Camilleri, M. A. Strategic dialogic communication through digital media during COVID-

19 crisis.

Campbell, K. M., & Doshi, R. (2020). The coronavirus could reshape global order.

Foreign Affairs, 18.

Clement, J. (2020, June 19). Estimated U.S. social media usage increase due to

coronavirus home isolation 2020. Statist.

COVID-19 Coding and Reporting Guidance - National Vital Statistics System. (2020,

July 24). Novel COVID-19 Survey Takes Nation’s Social, Mental “Pulse.”

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/articles/household-pulse-survey.htm

Edgar, Thomas W. (2017). Research Methods for Cyber Security.

Fischer, S. (2020, April 24). Social media use spikes during pandemic. Axios.

Garfin, D. R., Silver, R. C., & Holman, E. A. (2020). The novel coronavirus (COVID-

2019) outbreak: Amplification of public health consequences by media exposure.

Health Psychology.

Gottfried, J., Walker, M., & Mitchell, A. (2020, May 8). Americans’ Views of the News

Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak. Pew Research Center’s Journalism

Project.

48 Ingraham, N. E., & Tignanelli, C. J. (2020). Fact versus science fiction: fighting

coronavirus disease 2019 requires the wisdom to know the difference. Critical

Care Explorations, 2(4).

Karabag, S. F. (2020). An unprecedented global crisis! the global, regional, national,

political, economic and commercial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Journal

of Applied Economics and Business Research, 10(1), 1-6.

Landman, T., & Splendore, L. D. G. (2020). Pandemic democracy: elections and

COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 1-7.

Livingstone, S. (2020). Coronavirus and# fakenews: what should families do?. Parenting

for a Digital Future, 1-5.

Maly, C. I. (2020). The coronavirus, the attention economy and far-right junk news.

Diggit Magazine.

Mian, A., & Khan, S. (2020). Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation. BMC medicine,

18(1), 1-2.

Nature Editorial. (2020, May 29). Coronavirus in charts: the fact-checkers correcting

falsehoods. Nature.

Nielsen, R. K., Fletcher, R., Newman, N., Brennan, J. S., & Howard, P. (2020, April

15). Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How People in Six Countries Access and Rate

News and Information about Coronavirus. Politico EDU.

Patel, S., Moncayo, O. E., Conroy, K., Jordan, D., & Erickson, T. (2020). The Landscape

of Disinformation on Health Crisis Communication During the COVID-19

Pandemic in Ukraine: Hybrid Warfare Tactics, Fake Media News and Review of

Evidence. Harvard University.

49 Ritter, B. R. B. A. Z. (2020, November 3). Is the Media Creating Division on COVID-19

Health Practices? Gallup.Com.

Sharma, K., Seo, S., Meng, C., Rambhatla, S., Dua, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). Coronavirus on

social media: Analyzing misinformation in Twitter conversations.

Schumacher, S., & Kent, N. (2020, April 2). 8 charts on Internet use around the world as

countries grapple with COVID-19. Pew Research Center.

Steinert, S. (2020). Corona and value change. The role of social media and emotional

contagion. Ethics and Information Technology, 1-10.

Sugavanam, S. C., & Natarajan, B. (2020). Pseudoscientific beliefs and practices in the

COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review of unwanted experiments attributed to

social media-based misinformation afflicting the public health. Journal of Health

& Biological Sciences, 8(1), 1-9.

Tasnim, S., Hossain, M. M., & Mazumder, H. (2020). Impact of rumors or

misinformation on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in social media.

Vasconcellos-Silva, P. R., & Castiel, L. D. (2020). COVID-19, fake news, and the sleep

of communicative reason producing monsters: the narrative of risks and the risks

of narratives. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 36, e00101920.

Vraga, E. K., & Jacobsen, K. H. Strategies for Effective Health Communication during

the Coronavirus Pandemic and Future Emerging Infectious Disease Events. World

Medical & Health Policy.

Wen, J., Aston, J., Liu, X., & Ying, T. (2020). Effects of misleading media coverage on

public health crisis: A case of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China.

Anatolia, 31(2), 331-336.

50 Zarocostas, J. (2020). How to fight an infodemic. US National Library of Medicine

National Institutes of Health. 395(10225): 676.

51 Appendices

Appendix A

52