In The Causes and Consequences of COVID-19 Misperceptions: Understanding the Role of News and Social Media, Aengus Bridgman, Peter John Loewen, Derek Ruths, Oleg Zhilin, Eric Merkley, Taylor Owen, and Lisa Teichmann argue that comparatively more misinformation circulates on social media platforms, while traditional news media tend to reinforce public health recommendations like social distancing. They additionally show that exposure to social media is associated with misperceptions about COVID-19 while the inverse is true for news media. Overall, these misperceptions are associated with lower compliance with social distancing measures.
This group of researchers prove their arguments through conducting research focused on three separate data sets. First, they collected approximately 2.5 million tweets explicitly referring to COVID-19 in the Canadian context. Second, they collected over 9 thousand articles from nineteen Canadian English-language news sites from the same time period. From these two data sets, they coded for misinformation and public health recommendations. Lastly, they conducted a nationally representative survey that included questions related to media consumption habits, COVID-19 perceptions and misperceptions, and social distancing compliance. Based on their data collection, these researchers came to the previously mentioned three findings. For example, they found that on Twitter, about 50% of information tweeted was misinformation, while on the news less than 15% was determined to be.
Reading this study, as an American, I found it very informative and interesting to see how Canadians perceived the pandemic. Perhaps because there is so much controversy surrounding COVID-19 in the U.S. due to the state of our politics, I thought misinformation about the virus was primarily focused solely within America. However, while I always, of course, knew this, I recognized that social media is a universal tool— it’s used, for the most part, everywhere and not restricted to only one place. Information from place to place can spread no matter where one is from, and thus can make harmful misinformation accessible to anyone. Yet, I wonder, are countries with less access to social media more considerate/safe when it comes to the pandemic, or not due to lack of information— whether it be factual or not? Although harmful, are infodemics (a global spread of misinformation that poses a serious problem for public health) better than barely having any access to information at all?
I also found this study to be very engaging to read as an American, as we have seen very similar patterns in our own experience with the pandemic. You pose an interesting question about those with a lack of access to information, and whether this can be more harmful than an infodemic. I wonder if in places with limited access to media, the leaders have more control over the media that the average person does have access to. As a result of this (should this be the case), I predict that the people of these places would be more on the same page about their perceptions of the pandemic, and thus would act in similar ways in regard to social distancing behaviors.
I think there are a lot of really good points made here, especially the Twitter disconnect compared to media outlets and the American perspective. The Twitter disconnect is intriguing, but also makes complete sense to me because of the lack of prerequisites needed to tweet, so anyone can go on Twitter and tweet something inaccurate without any repercussions, whereas media outlets have their reputation and business on the line. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast two sides of twitter: those with 100k(random large number) followers vs those with < 100 followers and see how the misinformation compares, this way we can see how reputation affects the results. Secondly, your comment on thinking COVID misinformation is primarily an American issue is one I shared with you a few months ago, which is why I was so shocked when I went to France and saw they had a similar issue, which is definitely eye opening.
I think you raise really significant questions that are worth discussing, as I also have similar questions. I thought it was particularly interesting that this study took place in Canada and not the United States. The United States would have probably provided such different data and results, as I feel like this country is an anomaly in terms of misinformation. I also think that this misinformation is a critical factor in looking at other issues and things that we are divided on, generally speaking. For an example, the Anti-Vaxx society, presidential elections and voting fraud, as well as so many other issues that everyone stands so differently on. Misinformation fuels and confirms the thoughts that many have, and makes it much harder to get everybody on the same page. So to bring in Canada was a great choice by the authors, and I was honestly not surprised that the misinformation spreading is through social media, as people feel very comfortable posting how they feel and what they think on these platforms.