Digital Pseudo-Identification in the Post-Truth Era: Exploring Logical Fallacies in the Mainstream Media Coverage of the COVID-19 Vaccines

Abstract

Because of China’s new wave of COVID-19 in May 2023, the issue of tackling COVID-19 misinformation remains relevant. Based on Lippmann’s theory of public opinion and agenda setting theory, this article aims to examine the concept of digital pseudo-identification as a type of logical fallacy that refers to supporting journalists’ opinions with ‘false’ arguments that lack factual evidence. To do so, the study applied computer-aided content analysis, as well as rhetorical and critical discourse analyses, to examine 400 articles related to four COVID-19 vaccines (‘Oxford-AstraZeneca’, ‘Pfizer-BioNTech’, ‘Sputnik V’ and ‘Sinovac’) published on the online versions of two major British and American mainstream media sources between August 2020 and December 2021. The results of the study show that journalists of the ‘The New York Times’ and ‘The Guardian’ used similar logical fallacies, including the opinions of pseudo-authorities and references to pseudo-statistics and stereotypes, which contributed to creating distorted representations of the COVID-19 vaccines and propagating online misinformation. The study also reveals political bias in both of the mainstream media sources, with relatively more positive coverage of the European vaccines than non-European vaccines. The findings have important implications for journalism and open up perspectives for further research on the concept of digital pseudo-identification in the humanities and social sciences.

Sentiment Analysis toward the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Main Latin American Media on Twitter: The Cases of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru

“…Nevertheless, the perception of negativity increased due to the greater volume of content published. One of the challenges associated with vaccine-related negativity is that, at times, the media turns to pseudoscientific sources that disseminate false information to the public [58]. Finally, there are other authors who have analyzed the sentiment generated on Twitter regarding the vaccine in 192 countries and arrive at different conclusions, as they assert that messages with a negative tone prevail.…”