ArticleVaccines2022
Balanced Reporting and Boomerang Effect: An Analysis of Croatian Online News Sites Vaccination Coverage and User Comments during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to explore online media coverage of COVID-19 vaccination and user reactions to the different types of coverage. The authors aimed to investigate possible boomerang effects that arise when COVID-19 media coverage is assertive and confident, and to determine the effects of balanced reporting. A two-stage random sample comprised a total of 300 articles published in three Croatian online news sites during a period from 1 February 2020, through 15 January 2022. The data were categorized using human coding content analysis, while reliability of coding was checked by using two coders and calculating reliability coefficients. The data were analyzed by means of negative binomial regression analysis. The results revealed that COVID-19 reporting was mainly consensual, i.e., it provided largely affirmative information about vaccines. However, user comments were highly polarized and mostly negative, with the majority of anti-vaccination tropes linked to the "corrupt elites". Based on the user comments, the negative influence of balanced reporting on COVID-19 vaccines and the existence of boomerang effect in cases of the overtly persuasive affirmative reporting was also established. The boomerang effect did not depend on the context, i.e., on the type of reporting. This study extends previous research on balanced reporting and boomerang effects by analyzing online comments as a potentially good parallelism of the offline discursive strategies of the pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination communication. The results of the study can be used for the adjustment of strategic communication targeting the vaccine hesitant audience. Based on the study results, it is recommended that relativization and politicization of science should be prevented by not equating scientific consensus with absolute epistemological certainty and by addressing legitimate concerns of vaccine hesitant persons without putting explicit blame on them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.