Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38603176›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of communication2022

Political communication, press coverage and public interpretation of public health statistics during the coronavirus pandemic in the UK.

B T Lawson, Jairo Lugo-Ocando

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of communication, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

B T LawsonSchool of Communication and Media, University of Loughborough, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3228-6245
Jairo Lugo-OcandoCollege of Communication at the University of Sharjah, UAE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines the way numbers, often concerning risk, were communicated by politicians, covered by the news media and interpreted by the public during the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis in the United Kingdom. To explore this topic, we adopted a mixed-methods approach that included content analysis, comparative thematic analysis and a series of focus groups. Whilst coherency and consistency are touted as essentials in public health messaging, our textual analysis highlighted the disconnect between political communication and news media coverage. Whereas the UK government relied on vague references to curves and peaks to underpin a narrative of consistency and certainty in public health policy, the UK news media referred to specific numbers from within and outside the UK to criticise the government's approach as haphazard and lacking. This disconnect gained even more significance during our focus groups. When discussing numbers, participants referred to news media coverage rather than political messaging, using these figures to challenge the timing and nature of the UK lockdown. These findings present a significant critique of the UK government's communication during this health crisis. Instead of putting forward a coherent, homogenous and clear message to the public, the discourse around numbers and risk was diffracted, disconnected and opaque. This was largely due to the competing narratives presented by the news media.

Indexed as

coronavirusCOVID-19numberspoliticsrisk

Identifiers

PMID38603176
PMCPMC9111936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.