Cited by 80Communication and COVID-19 ImpactMisinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and Politics

Sustained online amplification of COVID-19 elites in the United States

Open access
Gallagher, Ryan J., Doroshenko, Larissa, Shugars, Sarah, Lazer, David, Foucault Welles, Brooke·2021·Social Media + Society

Abstract

In the absence of clear, consistent guidelines about the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, many people use social media to learn about the virus, public health directives, vaccine distribution, and other health information. As people individually sift through a flood of information online, they collectively curate a small set of accounts, known as crowdsourced elites, that receive disproportionate attention for their COVID-19 content. However, these elites are not all created equal: not all accounts have received the same attention during the pandemic, and various demographic and ideological groups have crowdsourced their own elites. Using a mixed-methods approach with a panel of Twitter users in the United States over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we identify COVID-19 crowdsourced elites. We distinguish sustained amplification from episodic amplification and demonstrate that crowdsourced elites vary across demographics with respect to race, geography, and political alignment. Specifically, we show that different subpopulations preferentially amplify elites that are demographically similar to them, and that they crowdsource different types of elite accounts, such as journalists, elected officials, and medical professionals, in different proportions. In light of this variation, we discuss the potential for using the disproportionate online voice of crowdsourced COVID-19 elites to equitably promote public health information and mitigate misinformation across networked publics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20563051211024957

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In political debates, high-centrality accounts often are partisan media, politicians, and political organizations.

    “In political debates, such accounts often are partisan media, politicians, and political organizations (Gallagher et al., 2021).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Gallagher et al., 2021

    The Sustained Amplification of COVID-19 Elites section (p. 5) finds that journalists and media outlets, followed by left- and right-leaning political accounts, were prominent in US Twitter discussions of COVID-19. The Scientific Expertise and COVID-19 Elites section (p. 7) includes elected officials among those political sources. The paper does not establish that these accounts are typically partisan media or political organizations across political debates generally, and it ranks sustained amplification rather than network centrality. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 45 · Cited by 80

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Foucault Welles, B., and Jackson, S. J. 2019. The battle for #Baltimore: Networked counterpublics and the contested framing of urban unrest. International Journal of Communication 13:1699.
  2. Marchal, N., and Au, H. 2020. 'Coronavirus EXPLAINED': YouTube, COVID-19, and the sociotechnical mediation of expertise. Social Media+ Society 6(3):2056305120948158.

Authors
Gallagher, R. J., Doroshenko, L., Shugars, S., Lazer, D., & Foucault Welles, B.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Northeastern University, USA
Corresponding author
Gallagher, Ryan J.
Venue
Social Media + Society
Published
2021-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
ISSN
2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3085014588
Cited by
80
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 7
FWCI
17.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Northeastern University (Internal grant)
  • National Science Foundation (2026631)
  • Army Research Laboratory (W911NF-18-1-0421)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, social media amplification, Twitter, information seeking, health misinformation, public health communication, demographic similarity, political alignment, race, journalists, elected officials, medical professionals, online publics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review