COVID scientists as rhetorical citizens: Persuasive op-eds and public debate over science policy.

Abstract

To discover the means of persuasion available to experts who embrace the responsibility of public communication in times of crisis, this study uses a text/countertext method of rhetorical analysis on U.S. newspaper editorials by scientists writing about COVID-19 policy. Model arguments to opposition audiences on pandemic restrictions and vaccine policy were selected for close reading. We examined how writers in a pro-con debate in a centrist newspaper appealed mainly to like-minded readers, failing to make arguments designed to change the opinions of those who did not already agree with them. The lack of rhetorical sensitivity in these editorials suggests a need for scientists to better utilize existing resources of language and argument when addressing opposition audiences. Exemplary editorials to opposition audiences in right-leaning and left-leaning newspapers were then examined to illustrate more promising strategies of public persuasion in highly partisan times.