#infodemic, one year on. News orgs are the most widely used source of information about coronavirus and have become even more central because-while overall reach has declined compared to earlier in the pandemic-reach of other sources has declined more. reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ongoing-infode… 1/9
Trust in news orgs declined by an average of 8 percentage points and trust in national governments has declined by average of 13pp. In most countries covered, national health authorities, global health authorities, and scientists+doctors+experts remain highly+broadly trusted 2/9
The 'trust gap' between coronavirus information from news organisations and information on different kinds of platforms remains pronounced. On average, gap btw news orgs and social media is 21pp, btw news and video sites 22pp, and btw news and messaging applications 28pp. 3/9
In terms of sources of false or misleading information about COVID-19, public concern is primarily centred on political actors. On average, 35% of respondents across eight countries say they have seen a lot or a great deal of false or misleading information from politicians 4/9
In terms of platforms, public concern over false or misleading information about COVID-19 is centred on social media. On average, 30% across eight countries say they think they have seen ‘a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of false or misleading info about coronavirus on social media 5/9
Encouragingly, belief in misinformation about coronavirus vaccines is very low. In most countries, more than 90% of respondents surveyed do not believe ANY of the five false claims we include in the survey. But significant numbers answer "don't know", documenting uncertainty 6/9
Controlling for other factors, we find using news organisations as a source for news and information about coronavirus is significantly associated with lower belief in vaccine misinformation in all eight countries covered. (We found similar positive association last year) 7/9
In contrast, relying on messaging apps, social media, video sites for info about coronavirus is significantly associated with higher misinformation belief in most of the countries covered. (Last year we found no consistent, significant associations w/coronavirus knowledge.) 8/9
Report based on online survey of nationally representative sample in 🇦🇷🇧🇷🇩🇪🇯🇵🇪🇸🇰🇷🇬🇧🇺🇸

Full text (if you want text with your regression) reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ongoing-infode…

PDF here reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/…

Builds on our 2020 report (covering six countries) here reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/infodemic-how-… 9/9

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rasmus_kleis

26 Feb
Ask scientists about peer review, and you’ll get… a lot of things. Boundary work (the institution grounds all scholarship), appreciation (collegial quality control=more rigorous work), and many dark sides (ie it's unreliable, unfair, unpaid, unequal, and done by #reviewer2) 1/19
Let me start here-I've internalized the boundary work. I believe in peer review, for all its imperfections. I think it is among things setting science apart. I've also spend lots of time on it, including dealing with 600+ manuscripts as journal editor, based on ~1000 reviews 2/19
But while important, peer review is not the ONLY thing that define science. Many different norms and institutions together define us. As Ziman writes: “peculiarity of science is that knowledge as such is deemed to be its principle product and purpose” cambridge.org/core/books/rea… 3/19
Read 20 tweets
25 Feb
US Congress yesterday hosted hearing on disinformation & extremism in the media

Journalists should want to interrogate these issue

As @farai writes as"we are questioning all the systems of society, journalism cannot be too prideful to examine itself" faraic.medium.com/its-bigger-tha… 1/5
One place to start is this (scathing) article: "What is being called our post-truth era [illustrates] the racial amnesia that plagues much of our contemporary post-truth criticism" in light of how e.g. media and politics often represent many minorities doi.org/10.1080/147914… 2/5
And this observation by some top-notch social scientists (which to my knowledge has largely been ignored by news coverage?)"Our analysis suggest that mainstream news media in fact play a significant and important role in the dissemination of fake news" doi.org/10.1080/238089… 3/5
Read 5 tweets
25 Feb
Talked democratic creative destruction, filter bubbles, polarization, business of news, and media policy with @EvelynDouek and @QJurecic on the great @lawfareblog podcast - some links to underlying @risj_oxford in thread below

lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcas… 1/6
Here @dragz and I on “democratic creative destruction” challenging incumbent institutions, creates new ones, and in many ways empower individuals while also leaving both individuals & institutions increasingly dependent on large US-based tech companies cambridge.org/core/books/soc… 2/6
On filter bubbles, this is something @dragz and I have examined e.g.

On social media: dx.doi.org/10.1177/146144…

And search: doi.org/10.1080/216708…

(Often overlooked bigger issue I personally think is inequality - e.g. with @tianyangyt et al pnas.org/content/117/46…)

Read 6 tweets
19 Feb
Group discussion w/ @risj_oxford journalist fellows on which discussions are contentious in their newsrooms around 🌍, kicking off from some US journalists feeling dominant viewpoint limits their ability to speak up

Partial list (deep breath) of issues people identify as hard...
..including things that are hard to cover & write about such as

* Religion, esp dominant religious group or historically maligned religious groups
* Migration and refugees, esp in face of majoritarian backlash
* National security, esp in countries where military is very powerful
* Women's rights, esp in very patriarchal societies (and often patriarchal newsrooms)
* Sexuality, esp LGBT
* Tribalism, esp when interconnected with electoral politics and/or political violence
* Civil war (well yes that and the legacy it leaves is hard)
* Regionalism/separatism
Read 5 tweets
19 Feb
"How to respond to disinformation while respecting free speech?" - @Commonlaw20 and I wrote submission for @Irenekhan’s UN work on disinformation, drawing on @risj_oxford research and other relevant work. Some key points in thread, full submission here reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/ho… 1/N
There is (a) no conceptual clarity and (b) no substantial agreement on what exactly constitutes disinfo. This is not a philosophical point but defining feature of problems we face. It underlines inherently political nature of determining what does and does not constitute disinfo.
From the point of view of the public disinformation is to a large extent a problem associated with the behaviour of politicians and other domestic actors, especially on social media, and not more narrowly a problem of false information or actors with more unambiguously ill intent
Read 14 tweets
18 Feb
What might it mean that Facebook has restricted publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing news content?

Some @risj_oxford research

First, 71% in Australia say they've used FB in the past week, 39% say they've engaged with news on FB digitalnewsreport.org

The 39% who have engaged with news on FB tend to be younger, women, more on the political left

Most access online news in many ways (direct,search,social,etc), but @dragz have run the numbers, and in 2020, 8% of 🇦🇺 internet news users say they ONLY get online news via social 2/9
That's maybe a million+ people? They can go elsewhere for news, but some won't. That's a big blow right there. As
we've shown, the effect of incidental exposure on e.g. Facebook is stronger for younger people and those with low interest in news.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14… 3/9
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!