Dealing with dissent from the medical ranks: Public health authorities and COVID-19 communication.

During a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health authorities will typically be criticized for their efforts. When such criticism comes from the ranks of medical personnel, the challenge becomes more pronounced for the authorities, as it suggests a public negotiation of who has sufficient expertise to handle the pandemic. Hence, the authorities are faced with the challenge of defending their competence and advice, while at the same time adhering to a bureaucratic/scientific ethos that imposes communicative boundaries. This explorative study analyzes the response strategies used by the Norwegian public health authorities in this regard. A main finding is that the authorities shunned aggressive language and mostly relied on a strategy pointing to well-established values such as proportionality (between the measures and the gravitas of the epidemiological situation) and relevance (the measures should meet the challenge in question).

Trustworthiness Over Time on Twitter: Three Critical Periods for the Norwegian Health Authorities and Political Leadership During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Public health authorities and political leaders need to come across as trustworthy in their handling of a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. There is, however, little knowledge about how the affordances and dynamics of social media influence perceptions of trustworthiness, especially during a protracted crisis. In this article, we study how Twitter users were discussing the trustworthiness of the Norwegian health authorities and political leadership throughout three periods of partial lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across all the periods, there was a substantial number of positive comments, but these were outweighed by negative ones. Ability was clearly the most discussed factor for trustworthiness, and many users offered up their lay expertise. Discussions of integrity and benevolence were less frequent and mostly negative when they occurred. An increase in negative comments during the last period might be read as an expression of fatigue, and there was a noted dissatisfaction with the ability of the political leadership. Taken together, the study suggests Twitter to be an arena where users are exposed to arguments and counterarguments in negotiations over ability in particular. Such discussions can intensify as a crisis drags on and are important to grasp for health authorities and political leadership alike. Thus, the study sheds light on the contribution that a socio-technical platform like Twitter makes to the discursive formation of trustworthiness over time, which in turn might function to strengthen or erode public trust in public authorities and political leadership.

Right-wing ideological constraint and vaccine refusal: The case of the COVID-19 vaccine in Norway.

Research has shown a correlation between votes for populist parties and the belief that vaccines are not important or effective. More recent investigations in the United States and France have similarly shown that attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine have been politicized. In this article, we show a similar pattern analyzing survey data from Norway, a country relatively mildly hit by the pandemic and characterized by high trust and a consensual political culture. We find that refusal to vaccinate is associated with right-wing ideological constraint, even when considering a wide array of control variables (e.g., lack of confidence, complacency), and sociodemographic characteristics. The results imply that vaccine refusal latch onto established political cleavages, particularly among the most ideologically consistent. Thus, polarization in the form of increasing ideological constraint may represent a mounting challenge for vaccine uptake, suggesting that vaccine communication should go beyond "explaining the science" and factor in ideology.

Expert ethos and the strength of networks: negotiations of credibility in mediated debate on COVID-19.

For public health promotion to succeed, popular support is necessary and the chosen policies and measures have to be perceived as legitimate by the public. In other words, health authorities need to build on and sustain established trust when they recommend a certain policy. When the policy is criticized, this trust is challenged, and the authorities enter into a negotiation of credibility (ethos). In this article, we research a particular instance of such negotiation, drawing lessons for health promotion and for COVID-19 communication. We study a Norwegian television debate in which an MD presented harsh criticism of the health authorities' chosen crisis response in the early phase of the pandemic. Unpacking the rhetorical constitution of the expert ethos of the MD and of the health authorities, respectively, we find that representatives of the authorities are more open to participation and better at connecting to everyday experiences than the MD, who primarily builds her expert ethos on mastery of scientific language and methods, combined with alarmist rhetoric. Further, we identify main tenets of the public's reception of the debate through an analysis of 1961 tweets that commented on the program. The analysis indicates that public health authorities might maintain high levels of trust by rhetorically cultivating their positions within institutional and (social) media networks of expertise.