Quantifying Online News Media Coverage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Text Mining Study and Resource.
COVID-19
infoveillance
public health
sentiment analysis
text mining
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 06 2021
02 06 2021
Historique:
received:
28
02
2021
accepted:
18
04
2021
revised:
18
04
2021
pubmed:
27
4
2021
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
26
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Before the advent of an effective vaccine, nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and lockdowns, have been the primary measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Such measures are highly effective when there is high population-wide adherence, which requires information on current risks posed by the pandemic alongside a clear exposition of the rules and guidelines in place. Here we analyzed online news media coverage of COVID-19. We quantified the total volume of COVID-19 articles, their sentiment polarization, and leading subtopics to act as a reference to inform future communication strategies. We collected 26 million news articles from the front pages of 172 major online news sources in 11 countries (available online at SciRide). Using topic detection, we identified COVID-19-related content to quantify the proportion of total coverage the pandemic received in 2020. The sentiment analysis tool Vader was employed to stratify the emotional polarity of COVID-19 reporting. Further topic detection and sentiment analysis was performed on COVID-19 coverage to reveal the leading themes in pandemic reporting and their respective emotional polarizations. We found that COVID-19 coverage accounted for approximately 25.3% of all front-page online news articles between January and October 2020. Sentiment analysis of English-language sources revealed that overall COVID-19 coverage was not exclusively negatively polarized, suggesting wide heterogeneous reporting of the pandemic. Within this heterogenous coverage, 16% of COVID-19 news articles (or 4% of all English-language articles) can be classified as highly negatively polarized, citing issues such as death, fear, or crisis. The goal of COVID-19 public health communication is to increase understanding of distancing rules and to maximize the impact of governmental policy. The extent to which the quantity and quality of information from different communication channels (eg, social media, government pages, and news) influence public understanding of public health measures remains to be established. Here we conclude that a quarter of all reporting in 2020 covered COVID-19, which is indicative of information overload. In this capacity, our data and analysis form a quantitative basis for informing health communication strategies along traditional news media channels to minimize the risks of COVID-19 while vaccination is rolled out.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Before the advent of an effective vaccine, nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and lockdowns, have been the primary measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Such measures are highly effective when there is high population-wide adherence, which requires information on current risks posed by the pandemic alongside a clear exposition of the rules and guidelines in place.
OBJECTIVE
Here we analyzed online news media coverage of COVID-19. We quantified the total volume of COVID-19 articles, their sentiment polarization, and leading subtopics to act as a reference to inform future communication strategies.
METHODS
We collected 26 million news articles from the front pages of 172 major online news sources in 11 countries (available online at SciRide). Using topic detection, we identified COVID-19-related content to quantify the proportion of total coverage the pandemic received in 2020. The sentiment analysis tool Vader was employed to stratify the emotional polarity of COVID-19 reporting. Further topic detection and sentiment analysis was performed on COVID-19 coverage to reveal the leading themes in pandemic reporting and their respective emotional polarizations.
RESULTS
We found that COVID-19 coverage accounted for approximately 25.3% of all front-page online news articles between January and October 2020. Sentiment analysis of English-language sources revealed that overall COVID-19 coverage was not exclusively negatively polarized, suggesting wide heterogeneous reporting of the pandemic. Within this heterogenous coverage, 16% of COVID-19 news articles (or 4% of all English-language articles) can be classified as highly negatively polarized, citing issues such as death, fear, or crisis.
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of COVID-19 public health communication is to increase understanding of distancing rules and to maximize the impact of governmental policy. The extent to which the quantity and quality of information from different communication channels (eg, social media, government pages, and news) influence public understanding of public health measures remains to be established. Here we conclude that a quarter of all reporting in 2020 covered COVID-19, which is indicative of information overload. In this capacity, our data and analysis form a quantitative basis for informing health communication strategies along traditional news media channels to minimize the risks of COVID-19 while vaccination is rolled out.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33900934
pii: v23i6e28253
doi: 10.2196/28253
pmc: PMC8174556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e28253Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/V038109/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
©Konrad Krawczyk, Tadeusz Chelkowski, Daniel J Laydon, Swapnil Mishra, Denise Xifara, Seth Flaxman, Seth Flaxman, Thomas Mellan, Veit Schwämmle, Richard Röttger, Johannes T Hadsund, Samir Bhatt. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.06.2021.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2009 May 21;360(21):2153-5, 2157
pubmed: 19423867
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 1996 Fall;26(3):260-69; discussion 269-71
pubmed: 8897665
Gac Sanit. 2020 May 23;:
pubmed: 32571528
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 28;22(4):e19118
pubmed: 32302966
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 18;8(1):6193
pubmed: 29670147
Am Psychol. 2020 Jul-Aug;75(5):618-630
pubmed: 32496074
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Nov 25;7(11):201726
pubmed: 33391818
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 30;17(15):
pubmed: 32751484
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Dec 22;117(51):32764-32771
pubmed: 33262277
Science. 2021 Feb 19;371(6531):
pubmed: 33323424
Health Commun. 2007;21(1):35-44
pubmed: 17461750
Basic Clin Neurosci. 2020 Mar-Apr;11(2):171-178
pubmed: 32855776
Eur Heart J. 2020 Oct 14;41(39):3782-3783
pubmed: 32678890
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7820):257-261
pubmed: 32512579
Health Expect. 2020 Apr;23(2):259-260
pubmed: 32227627
Psychiatry Res. 2020 May;287:112915
pubmed: 32199182
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):489-493
pubmed: 32179701
Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395(10241):e110-e111
pubmed: 32534627
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 18;22(8):e22590
pubmed: 32750001
Science. 2020 Jul 10;369(6500):208-211
pubmed: 32404476
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Nov;77(11):723-34
pubmed: 18434246
Int J Inf Manage. 2020 Oct;54:102143
pubmed: 32394997
J Comput Soc Sci. 2020 Oct 21;:1-34
pubmed: 33102926
J Travel Med. 2020 May 18;27(3):
pubmed: 32181488
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Mar-Apr;15(2):150-7
pubmed: 18096908