公共卫生办公室在推特和YouTube上对新冠肺炎信息的公众反应:对研究实践的影响

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Information Technology & Politics Pub Date : 2021-07-06 DOI:10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987
Jaigris Hodson, G. Veletsianos, S. Houlden
{"title":"公共卫生办公室在推特和YouTube上对新冠肺炎信息的公众反应:对研究实践的影响","authors":"Jaigris Hodson, G. Veletsianos, S. Houlden","doi":"10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We collected tweets directed at the official Twitter account of the Canadian Public Health Office as well as comments on a Canadian Public Health Office press conference posted to YouTube. We used a mixed method corpus-assisted discourse analysis approach to categorize and analyze these data. We found key differences between comments on each platform, namely differences in tone and sarcasm in YouTube comments, and more balance in Twitter mentions. Findings suggest that studying public responses to health information on one platform in isolation does not provide an accurate picture. To generate a fuller picture of misinformation, researchers should conduct studies across digital platforms using diverse methods. This research could influence how studies of health communication and public opinion are approached in the future.","PeriodicalId":47047,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Technology & Politics","volume":"19 1","pages":"156 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public responses to COVID-19 information from the public health office on Twitter and YouTube: implications for research practice\",\"authors\":\"Jaigris Hodson, G. Veletsianos, S. Houlden\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We collected tweets directed at the official Twitter account of the Canadian Public Health Office as well as comments on a Canadian Public Health Office press conference posted to YouTube. We used a mixed method corpus-assisted discourse analysis approach to categorize and analyze these data. We found key differences between comments on each platform, namely differences in tone and sarcasm in YouTube comments, and more balance in Twitter mentions. Findings suggest that studying public responses to health information on one platform in isolation does not provide an accurate picture. To generate a fuller picture of misinformation, researchers should conduct studies across digital platforms using diverse methods. This research could influence how studies of health communication and public opinion are approached in the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Information Technology & Politics\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"156 - 164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Information Technology & Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Technology & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1945987","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我们收集了针对加拿大公共卫生办公室官方Twitter账户的推文,以及发布在YouTube上的加拿大公共卫生办公室新闻发布会的评论。我们使用混合语料库辅助语篇分析方法对这些数据进行分类和分析。我们发现了每个平台上的评论之间的关键差异,即YouTube评论的语气和讽刺的差异,以及Twitter提到的更多平衡。研究结果表明,孤立地研究公众对一个平台上健康信息的反应并不能提供准确的情况。为了更全面地了解错误信息,研究人员应该使用不同的方法在数字平台上进行研究。这项研究可能会影响未来健康传播和公众舆论的研究方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Public responses to COVID-19 information from the public health office on Twitter and YouTube: implications for research practice
ABSTRACT We collected tweets directed at the official Twitter account of the Canadian Public Health Office as well as comments on a Canadian Public Health Office press conference posted to YouTube. We used a mixed method corpus-assisted discourse analysis approach to categorize and analyze these data. We found key differences between comments on each platform, namely differences in tone and sarcasm in YouTube comments, and more balance in Twitter mentions. Findings suggest that studying public responses to health information on one platform in isolation does not provide an accurate picture. To generate a fuller picture of misinformation, researchers should conduct studies across digital platforms using diverse methods. This research could influence how studies of health communication and public opinion are approached in the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Partisan news recommendations. Studying the effect of politicians’ online news sharing on news credibility From tweets to tensions: exploring the roots of political polarization in Turkish constitutional referendum Self-interest and preferences for the regulation of artificial intelligence Critical social media and political engagement in authoritarian regimes: the role of state media fairness perceptions Social media and political contention - challenges and opportunities for comparative research
×
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