How denialist amplification spread COVID misinformation and undermined the credibility of public health science.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Public Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1057/s41271-023-00451-4
Robert D Morris
{"title":"How denialist amplification spread COVID misinformation and undermined the credibility of public health science.","authors":"Robert D Morris","doi":"10.1057/s41271-023-00451-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Denialist scientists played an outsized role in shaping public opinion and determining public health policy during the recent COVID pandemic. From early on, amplification of researchers who denied the threat of COVID shaped public opinion and undermined public health policy. The forces that amplify denialists include (1) Motivated amplifiers seeking to protect their own interests by supporting denialist scientists, (2) Conventional media outlets giving disproportionate time to denialist opinions, (3) Promoters of controversy seeking to gain traction in an 'attention economy,' and (4) Social media creating information silos in which denialists can become the dominant voice. Denialist amplification poses an existential threat to science relevant to public policy. It is incumbent on the scientific community to create a forum to accurately capture the collective perspective of the scientific community related to public health policy that is open to dissenting voices but prevents artificial amplification of denialists.</p>","PeriodicalId":50070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":"114-125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-023-00451-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Denialist scientists played an outsized role in shaping public opinion and determining public health policy during the recent COVID pandemic. From early on, amplification of researchers who denied the threat of COVID shaped public opinion and undermined public health policy. The forces that amplify denialists include (1) Motivated amplifiers seeking to protect their own interests by supporting denialist scientists, (2) Conventional media outlets giving disproportionate time to denialist opinions, (3) Promoters of controversy seeking to gain traction in an 'attention economy,' and (4) Social media creating information silos in which denialists can become the dominant voice. Denialist amplification poses an existential threat to science relevant to public policy. It is incumbent on the scientific community to create a forum to accurately capture the collective perspective of the scientific community related to public health policy that is open to dissenting voices but prevents artificial amplification of denialists.

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
否认者是如何放大传播 COVID 的错误信息并破坏公共卫生科学的公信力的。
在最近的 COVID 大流行中,否认者科学家在引导公众舆论和决定公共卫生政策方面发挥了巨大作用。从一开始,否认 COVID 威胁的研究人员就被放大,影响了公众舆论,破坏了公共卫生政策。放大否认论者的力量包括:(1)有动机的放大者通过支持否认论的科学家来保护自己的利益;(2)传统媒体给予否认论者过多的时间;(3)争议的推动者寻求在 "注意力经济 "中获得牵引力;(4)社交媒体制造信息孤岛,否认论者在其中可能成为主导声音。否认者的扩大化对与公共政策相关的科学构成了生存威胁。科学界有责任创建一个论坛,以准确捕捉科学界与公共卫生政策相关的集体观点,该论坛既要向不同声音开放,又要防止否认者的人为放大。
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
Journal of Public Health Policy
Journal of Public Health Policy 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP) will continue its 35 year tradition: an accessible source of scholarly articles on the epidemiologic and social foundations of public health policy, rigorously edited, and progressive. JPHP aims to create a more inclusive public health policy dialogue, within nations and among them. It broadens public health policy debates beyond the ''health system'' to examine all forces and environments that impinge on the health of populations. It provides an exciting platform for airing controversy and framing policy debates - honing policies to solve new problems and unresolved old ones. JPHP welcomes unsolicited original scientific and policy contributions on all public health topics. New authors are particularly encouraged to enter debates about how to improve the health of populations and reduce health disparities.
期刊最新文献
COVID-19, migrants, and world large urban areas: a thematic policy brief. Global Public Health Association policies related to women, children and youth. Caregiver policies in the United States: a systematic review. COVID-19, social determinants, and African American-White disparities: policy response and pathways forward. State adoption of paid sick leave and cardiovascular disease mortality among adults in the United States, 2008-2019.
×
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