CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 142Misinformation and Its ImpactsCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pandemic Populism: Facebook Pages of Alternative News Media and the Corona Crisis -- A Computational Content Analysis

Open access
Boberg, Svenja, Quandt, Thorsten, Schatto-Eckrodt, Tim, Frischlich, Lena·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2004.02566arXiv 2004.02566
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has not only had severe political, economic, and societal effects, it has also affected media and communication systems in unprecedented ways. While traditional journalistic media has tried to adapt to the rapidly evolving situation, alternative news media on the Internet have given the events their own ideological spin. Such voices have been criticized for furthering societal confusion and spreading potentially dangerous "fake news" or conspiracy theories via social media and other online channels. The current study analyzes the factual basis of such fears in an initial computational content analysis of alternative news media's output on Facebook during the early Corona crisis, based on a large German data set from January to the second half of March 2020. Using computational content analysis, methods, reach, interactions, actors, and topics of the messages were examined, as well as the use of fabricated news and conspiracy theories. The analysis revealed that the alternative news media stay true to message patterns and ideological foundations identified in prior research. While they do not spread obvious lies, they are predominantly sharing overly critical, even anti-systemic messages, opposing the view of the mainstream news media and the political establishment. With this pandemic populism, they contribute to a contradictory, menacing, and distrusting worldview, as portrayed in detail in this analysis.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2004.02566

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 47 references

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Benkler, Y., Faris, R., Roberts, H., and Zuckerman, E. (2017). Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda. Columbia Journalism Review , pages 1-12.
  2. Jowett, G. S. and O'Donnell, V. (2012). Propaganda and persuasion . SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles; USA, fifth edition.
  3. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., and Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019. Technical report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford; UK.
  4. Robert Koch-Institut (2020d). Epidemiologisches Bulletin: SARS-CoV-2 in Deutschland und Ziele von Infektionsschutzmaßnahmen. Technical Report 7, Berlin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–142 of 142

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2004.02566
arXiv
2004.02566
OpenAlex
W3015170206
Cited by
141
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 20
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
alternative press, COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook, conspiracy theories, fake news, social media, political polarization

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