4.7 Article

Misinformation about the COVID-19 Vaccine in Online Catholic Media

期刊

VACCINES
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11061054

关键词

misinformation; Catholic media; COVID-19 vaccine; fake news; infodemic; health communication; vaccination; news media; digital media

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research analyzes publications about the COVID-19 vaccine in Catholic online media. The results show that most publications are informative with neutral headlines, but opinion articles have negative headlines. Many opinion authors and sources cited are from the religious sphere. Additionally, 35% of the publications relate the vaccine to the issue of abortion.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, online media were the most widely used sources of scientific information. Often, they are also the only ones on science-related topics. Research has shown that much of the information available on the Internet about the health crisis lacked scientific rigor, and that misinformation about health issues can pose a threat to public health. In turn, millions of Catholics were found to be demonstrating against vaccination against COVID-19 based on false and misleading religious arguments. This research analyses publications about the vaccine in Catholic online media with the aim of understanding the presence of information (and misinformation) in this community. An algorithm designed for each media outlet collected COVID-19 vaccine-related publications from 109 Catholic media outlets in five languages. In total, 970 publications were analysed for journalistic genres, types of headlines and sources of information. The results show that most publications are informative and most of their headlines are neutral. However, opinion articles have mostly negative headlines. Furthermore, a higher percentage of the opinion authors come from the religious sphere and most of the sources cited are religious. Finally, 35% of the publications relate the vaccine to the framing issue of abortion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据