Suffering from Vaccines or from Government? : Partisan Bias in COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Coverage

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10707v1
• Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 14:17:07 GMT
• Title: Suffering from Vaccines or from Government? : Partisan Bias in COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Coverage
• Authors: TaeYoung Kang, Hanbin Lee
• Abstract summary: We find that conservative media are inclined to report adverse events more frequently than their liberal counterparts. The users who support the conservative opposing party were more likely to write the popular comments.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Vaccine adverse events have been presumed to be a relatively objective measure that is immune to political polarization. The real-world data, however, shows the correlation between presidential disapproval ratings and the subjective severity of adverse events. This paper investigates the partisan bias in COVID vaccine adverse events coverage with language models that can classify the topic of vaccine-related articles and the political disposition of news comments. Based on 90K news articles from 52 major newspaper companies, we found that conservative media are inclined to report adverse events more frequently than their liberal counterparts, while the coverage itself was statistically uncorrelated with the severity of real-world adverse events. The users who support the conservative opposing party were more likely to write the popular comments from 2.3K random sampled articles on news platforms. This research implies that bipartisanship can still play a significant role in forming public opinion on the COVID vaccine even after the majority of the population's vaccination

Related papers

• Media Bias Matters: Understanding the Impact of Politically Biased News on Vaccine Attitudes in Social Media [28.79984927305606]
  We analyze how inherent vaccine stances subtly influence individuals' selection of news sources and participation in social media discussions. We observe that individuals with moderate stances, particularly the vaccine-hesitant majority, are more vulnerable to the influence of PBN compared to those with extreme views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T19:41:02Z)
• "Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 Science [50.08057052734799]
  We estimate scientific consensus based on samples of abstracts from preprint servers. We find that anti-consensus posts and users, though overall less numerous than pro-consensus ones, are vastly over-represented on Twitter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T06:16:57Z)
• Bias or Diversity? Unraveling Fine-Grained Thematic Discrepancy in U.S. News Headlines [63.52264764099532]
  We use a large dataset of 1.8 million news headlines from major U.S. media outlets spanning from 2014 to 2022. We quantify the fine-grained thematic discrepancy related to four prominent topics - domestic politics, economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs. Our findings indicate that on domestic politics and social issues, the discrepancy can be attributed to a certain degree of media bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T03:31:37Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• Doctors vs. Nurses: Understanding the Great Divide in Vaccine Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers [64.1526243118151]
  We find that doctors are overall more positive toward the COVID-19 vaccines. Doctors are more concerned with the effectiveness of the vaccines over newer variants. Nurses pay more attention to the potential side effects on children.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-11T14:22:16Z)
• Analyzing the Impact of Sentiments of Scientific Articles on COVID-19 Vaccination Rates [0.0]
  This study investigates the correlation between article sentiments and the corresponding increase or decrease in vaccinations in the United States. Results suggest that there was a relatively weak correlation between the average sentiment score of articles and the corresponding increase or decrease in COVID vaccination rates in the US.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-29T05:11:23Z)
• "COVID-19 was a FIFA conspiracy #curropt": An Investigation into the Viral Spread of COVID-19 Misinformation [60.268682953952506]
  We estimate the extent to which misinformation has influenced the course of the COVID-19 pandemic using natural language processing models. We provide a strategy to combat social media posts that are likely to cause widespread harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-12T19:41:01Z)
• Sentiment Analysis and Topic Modeling for COVID-19 Vaccine Discussions [10.194753795363667]
  We conduct an in-depth analysis of tweets related to the coronavirus vaccine on Twitter. Results show that a majority of people are confident in the effectiveness of vaccines and are willing to get vaccinated. Negative tweets are often associated with the complaints of vaccine shortages, side effects after injections and possible death after being vaccinated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T23:30:17Z)
• COVID-19 Vaccines: Characterizing Misinformation Campaigns and Vaccine Hesitancy on Twitter [8.181808709549227]
  We investigate misinformation and conspiracy campaigns and their characteristic behaviours for COVID-19 vaccines. We identify whether coordinated efforts are used to promote misinformation in vaccine related discussions. We study the large anti-vaccine misinformation community and smaller anti-vaccine communities, including a far-right anti-vaccine conspiracy group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T20:32:10Z)
• Falling into the Echo Chamber: the Italian Vaccination Debate on Twitter [65.7192861893042]
  We examine the extent to which the vaccination debate on Twitter is conductive to potential outreach to the vaccination hesitant. We discover that the vaccination skeptics, as well as the advocates, reside in their own distinct "echo chambers" At the center of these echo chambers we find the ardent supporters, for which we build highly accurate network- and content-based classifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-26T13:55:50Z)
• Evidence of disorientation towards immunization on online social media after contrasting political communication on vaccines. Results from an analysis of Twitter data in Italy [0.0]
  In Italy, vaccination coverage for key immunizations as MMR has been declining to worryingly low levels. In 2017, the Italian Gov't expanded the number of mandatory immunizations introducing penalties to unvaccinated children's families. During the 2018 general elections campaign, immunization policy entered the political debate with the Gov't in charge blaming oppositions for fuelling vaccine scepticism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-31T11:03:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.