Content uploaded by Yossi David
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yossi David on Aug 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Media and Information in Times of Crisis: The Case of the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Infodemic
Forthcoming in: COVID-19 and Similar Futures: Geographical perspectives, issues and
agendas
Yossi David
Department of Communication
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
Elisabeth Sommerlad
Institute of Geography
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
Bios
Yossi David is a visiting scholar in the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg
University Mainz, Germany. His current work comparatively tracks the uses and effects of
gendered, racialized, and sexualized language and discourse in the mainstream and digital
media, examining their role in shaping and constructing public opinion and behavior in times
of crises (wars, terrorist attacks, and the COVID-19 pandemic). His research has been
published in journals such as Information, Communication & Society (2020), Discourse &
Society (2019), Media Culture and Society (2018), and Journal of Conflict Resolution (2018).
Elisabeth Sommerlad is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Geography (Human
Geography Team), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany. She studied geography,
communication studies and sociology. Her dissertation on “Intercultural Encounters in
Feature Films” (approved 09/2019) investigates the cinematic staging of intercultural
encounters in U.S.-American movies. Her research focuses on questions of media and film
geography, as well as topics related to spaces and places of intercultural encounters, identity
and belonging, and geographical perspectives on social inequalities. She is managing editor
of the book series Media Geography at Mainz (Steiner).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yossi David Department of
Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 12, 55128,
Germany. E-mail: ydavid@uni-mainz.de.
Media and Information in Times of Crisis: The Case of the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Infodemic
Media play an important role in informing the public about issues on the
political agenda, different opinions, and public statements, thereby establishing
and bringing forth new spaces of information flow. One of the media’s main
roles in democratic societies is to give publicity to central issues on the political
and public agenda, especially in times of crisis. Nevertheless, studies have
found that, in times of crisis, the public and the media tend to “rally ’round the
flag,” leading to significant decreases in their criticality, alongside (almost)
unreserved support for nation(al) or region(al) leaders. This paper aims to
bridge the gap between both media and communication studies and geography
by focusing on the interaction between media, space, and society. It will first
address the role of media and information in times of crisis, then discuss the
importance and dangers of homogenous (digital and mainstream) media
discourses and technologies and offer a conceptual model for the role of media
and information in times of crisis. Finally, we will examine the role of media
and information during the COVID-19 infodemic and offer questions and
directions for future studies.
Keywords: Media and information, public opinion, space, social behavior, crisis, COVID-19,
Coronavirus,
1. Introduction
Media and communication studies is an interdisciplinary field that is founded mainly
in the social sciences. It focuses on the representation, use, and effects of media discourses
and technologies on individuals, groups, and nations in different aspects of everyday life and
crises. The increased popularity and importance of media and communication technologies in
modern life has emphasized the need to study how the media can help us better understand
politics, sociology, culture, economy, psychology, international relations, and geography.
Media and communication geography aims to bridge the gap between both media and
communication studies and geography by focusing on the interaction between media, space,
and society. Media and communication geography focuses on mediated spaces and places, as
well as on space and place components of media itself. It provides a processual perspective
on media and communication as spatial constructions, while at the same time maintaining a
multidimensional perspective on space and spatial mechanisms as both a cause and effect of
communication and mediated communication processes (Adams & Jansson 2012). The
interdisciplinary nature of both fields and the increased popularity of mass media and media
technologies has led to a “spatial turn” in media and communication studies and a “medial
turn” in geography. While geography focuses on the role of spaces and places, media and
communication highlights the role of mediated discourses and technologies.
This interdisciplinary paper will first address the role of media in times of crisis and
the importance and dangers of digital media. Second, we will discuss the role of homogenous
media coverage and public opinion. Finally, we will examine the implications of the role of
media and information during the COVID-19 era.
2. Media and Information in Times of Crisis
Media play an important role in informing the public about issues on the political
agenda, as well as different opinions and public statements. Societal and political
uncertainties during times of crisis enhance the need for information and, as such, increase
the importance of media discourses and technologies. Studies of crises have found an
ethnocentric bias in media coverage (Wolfsfeld et al., 2008) and an increase in negative
emotions and hawkish attitudes in public opinion (David et al., 2018). During stable times,
legacy and new media technologies are used mainly as a source of information (Entman,
2003; Katsabian, forthcoming; Middleton et al.,2013). However, in times of crisis, they may
be (ab)used in order to police, indoctrinate, and intimidate the public. They may even be used
as a weapon (Kampf & Liebes, 2013; Singer & Brooking, 2018).
Media discourses and frames can be used to shape public opinion (Entman, 2003;
Shamir & Shamir, 2000), emotions (David et al., 2018; Powell et al., 2015), and actions
(Antilla, 2010; David, 2020). Previous research has highlighted the importance of legacy and
new media in times of crisis, such as natural disasters (Middleton et al., 2013; Sood et al.,
1987), wars (Powell et al., 2015), and terrorist attacks (Entman, 2003; Kampf & Liebes,
2013; Singer & Brooking, 2018). Some examples include increases in hate speech, sexism,
and xenophobic ideologies, as well as increased support for human rights violations,
perceptions of international relations as a zero-sum game, and ethnocentric perceptions and
actions. During these times, the media and public change their behavior by withholding
disagreement and criticism, tending to “rally ’round the flag,” adhere uncritically to
instructions that governmental and public institutions issue in the name of the common good
(Mueller, 1970). During crises, there is also an increased risk of the media being used as a
weapon (Kampf & Liebes, 2013; Singer & Brooking, 2018).
Ethnocentric bias in time of crises is characterized on the one hand by increased
solidarity towards the in-group, and on the other by increasing hatred, discrimination, and
violence against those who are perceived as out-groups (Wolfsfeld et al., 2008). Ethnocentric
bias lead to a binary perception of the relationship between in-groups and out-groups and to a
categorization of the world in the form of “us” vs. “them.” This perspective is assembled
when existing social constructions, such as gender, race, and ethnicity, lead to an interactive
effect with media and information on emotions, attitudes, and actions. The phenomenon of
“rallying ’round the flag” (Mueller, 1970) has both positive and negative aspects. Some of the
positives include increased empathy toward fellow nation(al) or region(al) residents and
increased solidarity. Among the negative components are an increase in ethnocentrism and a
tendency to ignore the danger of not criticizing the actions and decisions a government takes
that affect its citizens’ and residents’ lives.
The process of weaponizing media discourses and technologies has a long and varied
history (from propaganda and misinformation to cyber-attacks). Media can also serve as a
channel for self-proclaimed—and often populist—counter-media, as well as the spreading of
hatred and intolerance (Baden & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2017; Kampf & Liebes, 2013;
Wolfsfeld et al., 2008). New media might be used as a weapon to disseminate
misinformation, spread intimidating and threatening messages, and demoralize opponents
(Singer & Brooking, 2018). The rise of digital technologies and new digital spaces has,
therefore, created and established new channels of information flow. Digital media
technologies themselves might also serve as a weapon, since digitizing civilian and
governmental infrastructure makes those infrastructures more vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
In democratic societies, media often publicize reliable, fact-checked information,
helping people make informed and knowledgeable decisions. This is indeed a crucial
precondition for the functionality of democratic societies. Therefore, two of the key
components for a functional media landscape are a legal anchoring in freedom of the press
and a degree of independence from the state, i.e., ensuring the state does not regulate the
media (and information) via either direct ownership of media channels or indirect regulation
and mechanisms of censorship and control. One possible policy that could undermine these
key components is the declaration of a state of emergency, which reduces human rights (e.g.,
freedom of movement, expression, and the press). Such rules are sometimes officially
enforced through censorship or indirectly by the creation of a conformist climate of opinion
(Shamir & Shamir, 2000) that leads to public self-censorship in the name of the common
good (Antilla, 2010).
Fig. 1 Media and information in times of COVID-19
Building on the abovementioned literature related to the role of media and
information during times of crisis, we propose a conceptual model (see Fig. 1, above) of the
effect that media and information have on public opinion and actions during crises. The
model aims to describe the direct and indirect roles that media, information, and social
constructions play in shaping emotions, attitudes, and actions. We argue that social
constructions influence emotions, attitudes, and actions, which are all intercorrelated. At the
same time, media and information flow moderates or reinforces the intercorrelations between
these different factors. Sociological and psychological processes during times of crisis are
shaped by the intersection of time and space. At the intersection of these framing phenomena,
any crisis that occurs (in our case, COVID-19) influences our actions directly but also
through other factors, emotions, and attitudes. This effect is, in turn, mediated by media and
information flow. We offer this model in order to help launch a scholarly debate on the
effects of media, information, and social constructions on social actions, through emotions
and attitudes.
3. Media and Information During the COVID-19 Infodemic
Often, the effects of media and information on the actions of individuals and groups
are indirect, being carried out through a reinforcement or moderation of existing perceptions,
beliefs, and attitudes. While COVID-19 is a viral disease that does not distinguish between
groups, people from social minorities have lower socioeconomic status, and as such, they
often cannot perform their jobs from home. This is one way that social constructions create
situations in which different groups have different levels of risk of COVID-19 infection.
Individuals’ ability to detect fake news and dis-information is also influenced by social
constructions (e.g., people who adhere to extreme political orientations tend to believe more
in conspiracy theories). Different groups are thus affected differently by both the epidemic
and the associated infodemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a health crisis, but it is at the same time a crisis of
information—one which has created an overabundance of information and misinformation
that has in turn constructed a global infodemic. As we suggest in our model (Fig. 1), social
constructions influence actions, emotions, and attitudes. At the same time, media and
information have a reinforcing or moderating influence on the effects of these different
factors. Moreover, the effect of each of the predicators also depends on where it falls on the
COVID-19 timeline (starting with the outbreak of the epidemic) and the space in which it
occurs (e.g., the country, city, or neighborhood).
In the context of the COVID-19 infodemic, we have witnessed various attempts by
both democratic and authoritarian regimes to increase control over the flow of media and
information and to control information regarding the spread of the virus. One important
function of the media was to act as mouthpieces for the governmental and public institutions
that issued declarations of states of emergency, which resulted in additional regulations
limiting press freedom and freedom in general. These enforced restrictions on the media have
been met with, among other things, allegations of fake news, public risk, and censorship.
The effect of “rallying ’round the flag” was ubiquitous during the outbreak and spread
of COVID-19 and manifested in the form of journalists and media outlets deciding to be
responsible and thus support the measures announced by governments and health
organizations worldwide. This decision led to media homogeneity and an overwhelming
media support for governmental and health organizations’ regulations around the world (e.g.,
in Germany, Israel, and Sweden). As in previous crises, the overwhelming and full-throated
support offered by different media outlets led to the successful implementation of
government and health organizations’ instructions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This
support may have a positive influence, as it has helped prevent the spread of the virus, save
lives, and increase solidarity within the in-group. Nonetheless, it also has negative effects,
since it encourages ethnocentrism, discrimination, xenophobia, and hatred towards out-
groups. A prominent example is the stereotyping of and discrimination against ethnic
minorities (e.g., people identified as “Chinese-looking”), gender minorities (e.g., LGBT
individuals, who have been denigrated in some countries for spreading the virus), and a zero-
sum game perception of international relations.
Relatedly, there have been further violations of human rights during the COVID-19
infodemic. The implementation and use of technologies to slow down the spread of COVID-
19 by tracking, monitoring, and mapping citizens’ movements, for example, might lead to
human rights violations. This highlights the legal and ethical questions related to the
conditions under which it is (im)possible to use such tracking technologies, and how we can
prevent human rights violations caused by the misuse or abuse of these technologies. We
critically ask: What kind of regulations are needed in order to prevent the (ab)use of media
and information to violate human rights? How does the knowledge that such monitoring
technologies exist affect self-discipline, social and political behavior, and spatial practices?
Which measures are needed to prevent the use of monitoring technologies for other purposes,
such as the detection of undocumented immigrants or the criminalization of minorities?
References
Adams, P. C., & Jansson, A. (2012). Communication geography: A bridge between
disciplines. Communication Theory, 22(3), 299-318.
Antilla, L. (2010). Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of
climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 240-256.
Baden, C., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2017). The search for common ground in conflict
news research: Comparing the coverage of six current conflicts in domestic and
international media over time. Media, War & Conflict, 11(1), 22-45.
David, Y. (2020). Public opinion, media, and activism: The differentiating role of media use
and perceptions of public opinion on political behavior. Unpublished manuscript.
David, Y., Rosler, N., & Maoz, I. (2018). Gender-empathic constructions, empathy and
support for compromise in intractable conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(8),
1727-1752.
Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s frame after 9/11.
Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432.
Kampf, Z., & Liebes, T. (2013). Transforming media coverage of violent conflicts: The new
face of war. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katsabian, T. (Forthcoming). It’s the end of working time as we know it: New challenges to
the concept of working time in the digital reality. McGill Law Journal.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599528. Accessed July 1, 2020.
Middleton, S. E., Middleton, L., & Modafferi, S. (2013). Real-time crisis mapping of natural
disasters using social media. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29(2), 9-17.
Mueller, J. E. (1970). Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political
Science Review, 64(1), 18-34.
Powell, T. E., Boomgaarden, H. G., De Swert, K., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A clearer
picture: the contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of
Communication, 65(6), 997-1017.
Shamir, J., & Shamir, M. (2000). The anatomy of public opinion. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Singer, P. W., & Brooking, E. T. (2018). LikeWar: The weaponization of social media.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sood, B. R., Stockdale, G., & Rogers, E. M. (1987). How the news media operate in natural
disasters. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 27-41.
Wolfsfeld, G., Frosh, P., & Awabdy, M. T. (2008). Covering death in conflicts: coverage of
the Second Intifada on Israeli and Palestinian television. Journal of Peace Research,
45(3), 401-417.