Beyond science denialism
disinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/18070337-123090Keywords:
science denialism, fake news, disinformation, Covid-19 pandemic, technical-mediatized public sphereAbstract
An analysis of an archive formed by editorials from two of the most important Brazilian newspapers during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic identified the predominance of a framing that attributed decisions of the Bolsonaro government to a denial of science. Based on historical and sociological sources, this paper discusses what this normative framing about science and health ignored, especially how the extreme-right adapted use of the paradigm of disinformation created by the tobacco industry to the new mediatic ecosystem. The paper concludes that the journalistic framing of science denialism emphasized criticisms that accused the state of incompetence, giving less visibility to the role of the federal Unified Healthcare System during the health emergency.
Downloads
References
ALCOTT, Hunt; GENTZKOW, Matthew. Social media and fake news in 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 31, n. 2, p. 212-236, 2017.
APNORC. The Media Insight Project. APNORC, 2016. Available at: https://apnorc.org/topics/media-insight-project/
AUSTIN, Lucinda; LIU, Brooke F.; JIN, Yan. How audiences seek out crisis information: exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, v. 40, n. 2, p. 188-207, 2012.
BERROCAL, Salomé (ed.). Politainment: la política espectáculo en los medios de comunicación. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, 2017.
BERRY, Jeffrey M.; SOBIERAJ, Sarah. The outrage industry: political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
DELABIO, Fernando; CEDRAN, Débora P.; MORI, Lorraine; KIORANIS, Neide M. M. Divulgação científica e percepção pública de brasileiros(as) sobre ciência e tecnologia. Revista Insignare Scientia, v. 4, n. 3, p. 273-290, 2021.
ENTMAN, Robert M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, v. 43, n. 4, p. 51-58, 1993.
EVANS, John H.; HARGITTAI, Eszter. Why doesn’t trust Fauci? The public’s belief in expertise and shared values of scientists in the Covid-19 pandemic. Socius, v. 6, p. 1-13, 2020.
FERRARI, Isaura W. et al. “Tratamento precoce”, antivacinação e negacionismo: quem são os Médicos pela Vida no contexto da pandemia de Covid-19 no Brasil? Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 27, n. 11, p. 4213-4222, 2022.
FERRÉ, Carme (ed.). Infoentretenemiento. El formato imparable de la era del espectáculo. Barcelona: UOC, 2013.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Microfísica do Poder. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2021.
GALLUP. Indicators of news media trust. Miami: Knight Foundation, 2018.
GOFFMAN, Erving. Os quadros da experiência social: uma perspectiva de análise. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2012.
HJARVARD, Stig. The mediatization of culture and society. New York: Routledge, 2010.
HJARVARD, Stig. The mediatization of society – a theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, v. 29, n. 2, p. 105-134, 2008.
HERASIMENKA, Aliaksandr; AU, Yung; GEORGE, Anna; JOYNES-BURGESS, Kate; KNUUTILA, Aleksi; BRIGHT, Jonathan; HOWARD, Philip N. The political economy of digital profiteering: communication resource mobilization by anti-vaccination actors. Journal of Communication, v. 73, n. 2, p. 126-137, 2022.
HERMIDA, Alfred. Twittering the news: the emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Pract., v. 4, n. 3, p. 297-308, 2010.
IPSOS MORI. Ipsos MORI Veracity Index. IPSOS.com, nov. 2018. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-11/veracity_index_2018_v1_161118_public.pdf
LINSTRÖM, Margaret; MARAIS, Willemien. Qualitative news frame analysis: a methodology. Communitas, v. 17, p. 21-38, 2012.
LIPPMANN, Walter. Public opinion. New York: Start Publishing, 2015.
LYNCH, Michael. We have never been anti-science: reflections on science wars and post-truth. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, n. 6, p. 49-57, 2020.
MACHADO, Jorge. O colapso contextual e a esfera pública manipulada por algoritmos: uma ameaça à sociedade? In: SEDISC. Análise de discurso em rede. Cultura e Mídia. Campinas: Pontes Editora, 2021. v. 5.
MACHADO, Jorge; MISKOLCI, Richard. Das jornadas de junho à cruzada moral: o papel das redes sociais na polarização política brasileira. Sociologia e Antropologia, v. 9, n. 3, p. 945-970, 2019.
MANDETTA, Luiz Henrique. Um paciente chamado Brasil. São Paulo: Objetiva, 2020.
MARWICK, Alice E.; BOYD, Danah. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, v. 13, n. 1, p. 114-133, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
MICHAELS, David. Manufactured uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the Public’s Health and Environment. In: PROCTOR, Robert N.; SCHIEBINGER, Londa. Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. p. 90-107.
MISKOLCI, Richard. Batalhas morais: política identitária na esfera pública técnico-midiatizada. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2021.
MISKOLCI, Richard. Sociologia digital: notas sobre pesquisa na era da conectividade. Contemporânea - Revista de sociologia da UFSCar, v. 6, n. 2, p. 275-297, 2016.
MURIEL-TORRADO, Enrique; PEREIRA, Danielle B. Correlations between the concepts of disinformation and Fogg’s Behavioral Model. Transinformação, v. 32, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202032e200026
PASQUALE, Frank. A esfera pública automatizada. Libero ars, n. 39, 2017. Available at: http://seer.casperlibero.edu.br/index.php/libero/article/view/866/832
PASTERNAK, Natália; ORSI, Carlos. Contra a realidade: a negação da ciência, suas causas e consequências. Campinas: Papirus; 7 Mares, 2021.
PECHULA, Marcia R.; GONÇALVES, Elizabeth; CALDAS, Graça. Divulgação científica: mídia, discurso e educação. Controvérsias e perspectivas. Redes.com, n. 7, p. 43-60, 2013.
PRASAD, Amit. Anti-science misinformation and conspiracies: covid-19, post-truth, and Science and Technology Studies. Science, Technology and Society, p. 1-25, 2021.
PROCTOR, Robert N.; SCHIEBINGER, Londa. Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.
ORESKES, Naomi; CONWAY, Erik M. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truths on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloombury Press, 2010.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER. Science and scientists held in high steem across global politics. Pew Research Center, 2020. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/
REIS, Rosana R.; VENTURA, Deisy; AITH, Fernando. Mapeamento e análise das normas jurídicas de resposta à COVID-19 no Brasil. São Paulo: CEPEDISA-FSP-USP; Conectas, 2021.
REUTERS INSTITUTE. Digital News Report. Reuters Institute, jun. 2021. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021
ROOKE, Martin. Alternative media framing of COVID-19 risks. Current Sociology, v. 69, n. 4, p. 584-602, 2021.
SAN ANDRÉS, I. S.; CASTROMIL, Antón R. La teoria de agenda-setting: origen, evolución y vigencia. In: CASTROMIL, A. R. et al. (eds.). La comunicación política en la era de la mediatización. Salamanca: Comunicación Social Ediciones y Publicaciones, 2002. p. 93-126.
UNESCO. Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation: a handbook for journalism edition and training. Unesco, 2018. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/node/295873
UNESCO. O que são “notícias falsas”? Brasília: UNESCO, 2019.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Richard Miskolci
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
