Emotional profiling and cognitive networks unravel how mainstream and alternative press framed AstraZeneca, Pfizer and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

COVID-19 vaccines have been largely debated by the press. To understand how mainstream and alternative media debated vaccines, we introduce a paradigm reconstructing time-evolving narrative frames via cognitive networks and natural language processing. We study Italian news articles massively re-shared on Facebook/Twitter (up to 5 million times), covering 5745 vaccine-related news from 17 news outlets over 8 months. We find consistently high trust/anticipation and low disgust in the way mainstream sources framed "vaccine/vaccino". These emotions were crucially missing in alternative outlets. News titles from alternative sources framed "AstraZeneca" with sadness, absent in mainstream titles. Initially, mainstream news linked mostly "Pfizer" with side effects (e.g. "allergy", "reaction", "fever"). With the temporary suspension of "AstraZeneca", negative associations shifted: Mainstream titles prominently linked "AstraZeneca" with side effects, while "Pfizer" underwent a positive valence shift, linked to its higher efficacy. Simultaneously, thrombosis and fearful conceptual associations entered the frame of vaccines, while death changed context, i.e. rather than hopefully preventing deaths, vaccines could be reported as potential causes of death, increasing fear. Our findings expose crucial aspects of the emotional narratives around COVID-19 vaccines adopted by the press, highlighting the need to understand how alternative and mainstream media report vaccination news.

Measuring user engagement with low credibility media sources in a controversial online debate.

We quantify social media user engagement with low-credibility online news media sources using a simple and intuitive methodology, that we showcase with an empirical case study of the Twitter debate on immigration in Italy. By assigning the Twitter users an Untrustworthiness (U) score based on how frequently they engage with unreliable media outlets and cross-checking it with a qualitative political annotation of the communities, we show that such information consumption is not equally distributed across the Twitter users. Indeed, we identify clusters characterised by a very high presence of accounts that frequently share content from less reliable news sources. The users with high U are more keen to interact with bot-like accounts that tend to inject more unreliable content into the network and to retweet that content. Thus, our methodology applied to this real-world network provides evidence, in an easy and straightforward way, that there is strong interplay between accounts that display higher bot-like activity and users more focused on news from unreliable sources and that this influences the diffusion of this information across the network.