Covid-19 Research in Alternative News Media: Evidencing and Counterevidencing Practices

Markus Schug, Helena Bilandzic and Susanne Kinnebrock
Additional contact information
Markus Schug: Department of Media, Knowledge, and Communication, University of Augsburg, Germany / Centre for Interdisciplinary Health Research, University of Augsburg, Germany
Helena Bilandzic: Department of Media, Knowledge, and Communication, University of Augsburg, Germany / Centre for Interdisciplinary Health Research, University of Augsburg, Germany
Susanne Kinnebrock: Department of Media, Knowledge, and Communication, University of Augsburg, Germany / Centre for Interdisciplinary Health Research, University of Augsburg, Germany

Media and Communication, 2023, vol. 11, issue 1, 323-334

Abstract: The Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an excess of accurate and inaccurate information (infodemic) that has prevented people from finding reliable guidance in decision-making. Non-professional but popular science communicators—some with a political agenda—supply the public with scientific knowledge regarding Covid-19. This kind of communication represents a worrisome force in societal discourses on science-related political issues. This article explores online content ( N = 108 articles) of two popular German “alternative news” media ( NachDenkSeiten and PI News ) that present and evaluate biomedical research concerning Covid-19. Using thematic analysis, we investigated how scientific evidence was presented and questioned. Regarding the theoretical background, we drew on the concept of “evidencing practices” and ideas from argumentation theory. More specifically, we studied the use of the following three evidencing and counterevidencing practices: references to Data/Methods, references to Experts/Authorities, and Narratives. The results indicate that the studied alternative news media generally purport to report on science using the same argumentation mechanisms as those employed in science journalism in legacy media. However, a deeper analysis reveals that argumentation directions mostly follow preexisting ideologies and political agendas against Covid-19 policies, which leads to science coverage that contradicts common epistemic authorities and evidence. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of our findings for audience views and consider strategies for countering the rejection of scientific evidence.

Keywords: alternative news media; argumentation theory; counterevidencing practice; Covid-19; science communication (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/6049 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cog:meanco:v11:y:2023:i:1:p:323-334

DOI: 10.17645/mac.v11i1.6049

Access Statistics for this article

Media and Communication is currently edited by Raquel Silva

More articles in Media and Communication from Cogitatio Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by António Vieira () and IT Department ().