I know the tweet in question and it was certainly wrong, but there is so much misinformation that’s top down in this current environment that came from traditional sources. How do we put that in our research?
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @katestarbird
I mean the tweet in question was sensationalist, but it was less wrong compared to a lot of traditional media at the time. It didn’t even get really the facts wrong it was just sensationalist. People who listened to it probably fared better than those who followed regular media.
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
There’s an inherent challenge for studying crisis rumors in “simply” identifying what is a rumor and what isn’t — where veracity itself is dynamic. A) rumors sometimes turn out to be true; B) something false one day may be true later; C) the best info today may be false tomorrow.
1 reply 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
Right but that wasn’t a rumor. It was just sensationally worded.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Sensationally worded, yes. But also the tweet stripped away the context for that number, which can happen when we translate science to social media...
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
My concern is that it was a less context-stripped use of R0 than a lot of opeds in NYT, WaPo etc. (I pick on outlets that I write for and that I subscribe as examples to be fair). It was more informative than many out in credible media at the time. (I still didn't like it but...)
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @katestarbird
I mean the wording plus saying he'd never seen that R0 blah blah disqualified him as an expert in my book, for sure. But in the sea of misinformation we have been swimming in, good amount from traditional sources, it seemed to be a mild example.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
That critique makes sense. The explanation is my colleagues have expertise in science literacy and we’re developing a set of research questions at the intersection of their expertise and ours (online mis- and disinformation during crisis). This case sits at the intersection.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird @zeynep
Also, this case got picked up and pushed up into broader conversations by more traditional sources (including journalists). The correction was eventually boosted by journalists as well. It highlights that intersection - how social media influence shapes broader conversations.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird
Indeed. I’m just hoping that we manage to look at all those intersections—the whole ecology is involved.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
(In my particular case, a careful curation from social media was more informative and correct than traditional media. Social media had a lot of nonsense but also much more useful stuff than the traditional media which was full of misinformation. So hard for ordinary people!)
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
You definitely did an amazing job wading through it and synthesizing. Your thread in late-Feb (on why social distancing and other measure would be so important) was one of the best—most frightening but most informative—things I read about the virus.
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @katestarbird @zeynep
IMO, no media is really able to provide solid info on such technical matters. Research sites, clinical sites and public health orgs are better all around.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.