Misinformation During a Pandemic

Leonardo Bursztyn, Aakaash Rao, Christopher Roth, David Yanagizawa-Drott
{"title":"Misinformation During a Pandemic","authors":"Leonardo Bursztyn, Aakaash Rao, Christopher Roth, David Yanagizawa-Drott","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3580487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We study the effects of news coverage of the novel coronavirus by the two most widely-viewed cable news shows in the United States – Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight, both on Fox News – on viewers' behavior and downstream health outcomes. Carlson warned viewers about the threat posed by the coronavirus from early February, while Hannity originally dismissed the risks associated with the virus before gradually adjusting his position starting late February. We first validate these differences in content with independent coding of show transcripts. In line with the differences in content, we present novel survey evidence that Hannity's viewers changed behavior in response to the virus later than other Fox News viewers, while Carlson's viewers changed behavior earlier. We then turn to the effects on the pandemic itself, examining health outcomes across counties. First, we document that greater viewership of Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight is strongly associated with a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the early stages of the pandemic. The relationship is stable across an expansive set of robustness tests. To better identify the effect of differential viewership of the two shows, we employ a novel instrumental variable strategy exploiting variation in when shows are broadcast in relation to local sunset times. These estimates also show that greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight is associated with a greater number of county-level cases and deaths. Furthermore, the results suggest that in mid-March, after Hannity's shift in tone, the diverging trajectories on COVID-19 cases begin to revert. We provide additional evidence consistent with misinformation being an important mechanism driving the effects in the data. While our findings cannot yet speak to long-term effects, they indicate that provision of misinformation in the early stages of a pandemic can have important consequences for how a disease ultimately affects the population.","PeriodicalId":223724,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior: Cognition","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"285","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior: Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3580487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 285

Abstract

We study the effects of news coverage of the novel coronavirus by the two most widely-viewed cable news shows in the United States – Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight, both on Fox News – on viewers' behavior and downstream health outcomes. Carlson warned viewers about the threat posed by the coronavirus from early February, while Hannity originally dismissed the risks associated with the virus before gradually adjusting his position starting late February. We first validate these differences in content with independent coding of show transcripts. In line with the differences in content, we present novel survey evidence that Hannity's viewers changed behavior in response to the virus later than other Fox News viewers, while Carlson's viewers changed behavior earlier. We then turn to the effects on the pandemic itself, examining health outcomes across counties. First, we document that greater viewership of Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight is strongly associated with a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the early stages of the pandemic. The relationship is stable across an expansive set of robustness tests. To better identify the effect of differential viewership of the two shows, we employ a novel instrumental variable strategy exploiting variation in when shows are broadcast in relation to local sunset times. These estimates also show that greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight is associated with a greater number of county-level cases and deaths. Furthermore, the results suggest that in mid-March, after Hannity's shift in tone, the diverging trajectories on COVID-19 cases begin to revert. We provide additional evidence consistent with misinformation being an important mechanism driving the effects in the data. While our findings cannot yet speak to long-term effects, they indicate that provision of misinformation in the early stages of a pandemic can have important consequences for how a disease ultimately affects the population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大流行期间的错误信息
我们研究了美国最受欢迎的两个有线新闻节目——福克斯新闻频道的《汉尼提》和《塔克·卡尔森今夜秀》对新型冠状病毒新闻报道对观众行为和下游健康结果的影响。卡尔森从2月初开始就警告观众冠状病毒带来的威胁,而汉尼提最初否认了与病毒相关的风险,然后从2月底开始逐渐调整立场。我们首先通过独立编码来验证这些内容上的差异。根据内容的差异,我们提出了新的调查证据,表明汉尼提的观众比其他福克斯新闻的观众更晚改变行为以应对病毒,而卡尔森的观众更早改变行为。然后,我们转向对大流行本身的影响,检查各县的卫生结果。首先,我们证明,《今夜秀》的收视率高于《塔克·卡尔森》,与大流行早期更多的COVID-19病例和死亡人数密切相关。在一系列稳健性测试中,这种关系是稳定的。为了更好地识别这两个节目的不同收视率的影响,我们采用了一种新的工具变量策略,利用节目播出时间与当地日落时间相关的变化。这些估计还表明,与《今夜塔克·卡尔森》相比,与汉尼提接触越多,县级病例和死亡人数就越多。此外,结果表明,在汉尼提改变语气后的3月中旬,COVID-19病例的分化轨迹开始恢复。我们提供了额外的证据,证明错误信息是驱动数据影响的重要机制。虽然我们的研究结果还不能说明长期影响,但它们表明,在大流行的早期阶段提供错误信息可能对疾病最终如何影响人口产生重要影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Activists as Free-Riders: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment How Self-Respect and Self Esteem affect wellbeing and health: The serial mediation of happiness, and job satisfaction, complemented by Self-Efficacy Fear and Favoritism in the Time of COVID-19 Fire Alarm Fatigue: How Politicians Evade Accountability Trust to the Scientists: Intention to Complete the 2021 Census in England and Wales
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1