ABSTRACT
The Covid‐19 pandemic has been accompanied by an excess of accurate and inaccurate information (infodemic) that has prevented people from finding reliable guidance in decision‐making. Non‐professional but popular science communicators —some with a political agenda—supply the public with scientific knowledge regarding Covid‐19. This kind of communication represents a worrisome force in societal discourses on science‐related political issues. This article explores online content (N = 108 articles) of two popular German "alternative news” media (NachDenkSeiten and PI News) that present and evaluate biomedical research concerning Covid‐19. Using thematic analysis, we investigated how scientific evidence was presented and questioned. Regarding the theoretical background, we drew on the concept of "evidencing practices” and ideas from argumentation theory. More specifically, we studied the use of the following three evidencing and counterevidencing practices: references to Data/Methods, references to Experts/Authorities, and Narratives. The results indicate that the studied alternative news media generally purport to report on science using the same argumentation mechanisms as those employed in science journalism in legacy media. However, a deeper analysis reveals that argumentation directions mostly follow preexisting ideologies and political agendas against Covid‐19 policies, which leads to science coverage that contradicts common epistemic authorities and evidence. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of our findings for audience views and consider strategies for countering the rejection of scientific evidence. © 2023 by the author(s);licensee Cogitatio Press (Lisbon, Portugal).
ABSTRACT
Digital stress caused by the proliferation and omnipresence of digital media has been attracting scientific interest for several years. The physical contact restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have further increased the importance of digital media in people's professional and private lives. This article investigates the consequences of this new situation for people's perceptions of digital stress. It applies a life-world perspective and considers several individual and situational factors. Our study was based on semi-structured interviews with German adults. Five key findings emerged: (1) during the pandemic, digital stress was predominantly caused by home office work;(2) already-known stressors were amplified in home offices;(3) digital devices contributed to the dissolution of boundaries between work and private life;(4) people experienced multiple stressors simultaneously, both digital and analog;(5) the private use of digital media was not associated with stress but perceived as saving social connections. Furthermore, the results show that the experience of digital stress is highly dependent on situational contexts and individual lifestyles.