This article provides one of the first analyses of visuals in misinformation concerning COVID-19. A mixed-methods analysis of ninety-six examples of visuals in misinformation rated false or misleading by independent professional fact-checkers from the first three months of 2020 identifies and examines six frames and three distinct functions of visuals in pieces of misinformation: how visuals illustrate and selectively emphasize arguments and claims, purport to present evidence for claims, and impersonate supposedly authoritative sources for claims. Notably, visuals in more than half of the pieces of misinformation analyzed explicitly serve as evidence for false claims, most of which are mislabelled rather than manipulated. While this analysis uncovered a small number of manipulated visuals, all were produced using simple tools; there were no examples of “deepfakes” or other artificial intelligence-based techniques. In recognizing the diverse functions of visuals in misinformation and drawing on recent literature on scientific visualization, this article demonstrates the value in both attending to visual content in misinformation and expanding our focus beyond a concern with only the representational aspects and functions of misinformation.

In 2020, the term ‘infodemic’ rose from relative obscurity to becoming a popular catch-all metaphor, representing the perils of fast, wide-spreading (false) information about the coronavirus pandemic. It featured in thousands of academic publications and received widespread attention from policymakers and the media. In this article, we trace the origins and use of the ‘infodemic’ metaphor and examine the blind spots inherent in this seemingly intuitive term. Drawing from literature in the cognitive sciences and communication studies, we show why information does not spread like a virus and point out how the ‘infodemic’ metaphor can be misleading, as it conflates multiple forms of social behaviour, oversimplifies a complex situation and helps constitute a phenomenon for which concrete evidence remains patchy. We point out the existing tension between the usefulness of the widespread use of the term ‘infodemic’ and its uncritical adoption, which we argue can do more harm than good, potentially diluting the quality of academic work, public discourse and contributing to state overreach in policymaking.

Right-wing populists are gaining ground in Western democracies. Surveys show that they often distrust established media and public service media (PSM) in particular, claiming that they are biased against them. This paper examines how they have challenged PSM and proposes some potential responses to these challenges. The paper is based on an analysis of a number of recent and long-standing surveys of public attitudes towards the media, combined with an analysis of support for right-wing populists. It focuses on three purposively sampled national case studies: Austria, Germany and Sweden. We show several commonalities among PSM in these three countries, including similar right-wing populist attacks on PSM. The findings crystallise around two points: First, the impartiality and objectivity of news media has generally become less taken-for-granted in a ‘high-choice’ media environment offering various news products of different quality. Secondly, historical left-right distinctions have become less clear-cut, also because right-wing populists challenge them. Consequently, the role of PSM in creating a shared national conversation which represents the diversity of society has also come under siege. At the same time, partisan websites and social media platforms enable certain groups to showcase content that is more aligned with the perspectives of right-wing populists. The paper concludes by asking if right-wing populists are a growing threat to PSM and whether this threat is isolated or potentially indicative of a broader and more sustained pattern.

No abstract

Who are mis-/disinformation studies for? What agenda does the field serve? How can it be improved? While the increase in the attention towards the topic in the last years is healthy, it has also led to an explosion of papers in all directions, and the field has been subject to various criticisms and attacks. In this commentary, we discuss the status and wider impact of the field, raise current challenges, and propose ways ahead for the development of a more critical, interdisciplinary, and rigorous scholarly discipline of mis- and disinformation studies.