Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis

Abstract

Background Improving persuasion in response to vaccine skepticism is a long-standing problem. Elective nonvaccination emerging from skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy jeopardizes herd immunity, exposing those who are most vulnerable to the risk of serious diseases. Objective This article analyzes vaccine sentiments in the New York Times as a way of improving understanding of why existing persuasive approaches may be ineffective and offers insight into how existing methods might be improved. We categorize pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine arguments, offering an in-depth analysis of pro-vaccine appeals and tactics in particular to enhance current understanding of arguments that support vaccines. Methods Qualitative thematic analyses were used to analyze themes in rhetorical appeals across 808 vaccine-specific comments. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine comments were categorized to provide a broad analysis of the overall context of vaccine comments across viewpoints, with in-depth rhetorical analysis of pro-vaccine comments to address current gaps in understanding of pro-vaccine arguments in particular. Results Appeals across 808 anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine comments were similar, though these appeals diverged in tactics and conclusions. Anti-vaccine arguments were more heterogeneous, deploying a wide range of arguments against vaccines. Additional analysis of pro-vaccine comments reveals that these comments use rhetorical strategies that could be counterproductive to producing persuasion. Pro-vaccine comments more frequently used tactics such as ad hominem arguments levied at those who refuse vaccines or used appeals to science to correct beliefs in vaccine skepticism, both of which can be ineffective when attempting to persuade a skeptical audience. Conclusions Further study of pro-vaccine argumentation appeals and tactics could illuminate how persuasiveness could be improved in online forums.

Who’s a Vaccine Skeptic? Framing Vaccine Hesitancy in Post-Covid News Coverage

“…Second, I selected the NYT because of its prominence in social media posts. NYT pieces are the most shared on social media, compared to pieces published in other major news outlets (Mitnik et al, 2020; Walker & Matsa, 2021), a finding that suggests NYT coverage is enmeshed in public deliberation and discussion (Gallagher & Lawrence, 2020). Sampling texts from NYT has its limitations—national polling has documented a public perception of NYT reportage as liberal leaning, and NYT readership is richer, whiter, more liberal, and more likely to be college-educated than the general U.S. population (Pew Research Center, 2012).…”

Freedom And Responsibility In American Public Health Debate Around Covid-19

“…Experts note that the ideological gap between the conflicting narratives (protecting individual rights vs. achieving collective good), instead of strengthening the arguments for either side actually lessens their potential to operate persuasively for skeptical readers (Gallagher & Lawrence, 2020).…”

Detecting Conspiracy Theories on Social Media: Improving Machine Learning to Detect and Understand Online Conspiracy Theories

“…Gesser-Edelsburg et al ( 2018) documented that both pro-vaccine and vaccine-hesitant participants preferred transparent corrections that addressed their concerns, including their emotional concerns. Public health communicators seem to agree and argue that corrections should done in ways that create safe spaces to encourage dialogue, foster community partnerships, and counter misinformation with care (Steffens et al, 2019), and that ad hominem attacks against vaccine skeptics are unlikely to persuade (Gallagher and Lawrence, 2020). Likewise, Zollo et al (2017) highlighted that corrections should promote "a culture of humility" that demolishes "walls and barriers between tribes, could represent a first step to contrast misinformation.…”