On March 11, 2020, COVID-19 was officially declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Facing a global challenge of unprecedented magnitude in the modern era, borders of nearly 350 nations were closed and quarantine measures put in place. By March 18, the United States had restricted all non-essential travel and confirmed cases in the US passed the 10,000 mark. American citizens, having never faced down such a threat, looked to their leadership for more information. To know how serious was the disease. How long would this pandemic last? What can we do to stay healthy? In the months following the WHO’s announcement, a critical failure on the part of leadership to present a strong, unified, and effective message to the public allowed for the spread of misunderstanding, misinformation, and the politicization of the COVID response that ultimately cost lives. By the time leadership emerged in the form of public figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci or Governor Andrew Cuomo, the politicization of COVID had already taken hold, grist for social media sectarians. As head of a Public Health Emergency Management Team, I would have made engagement and intervention in the online conversation a priority from the start. In the era of “fake news” it’s crucial that we take measures as public health officials to become experts at communicating in this evolving public forum. With a lack of effort and focus on the part of elected officials, those in public health could provide meaningful leadership by engaging with these platforms to counter the more detrimental impulses at work as we fight the COVID pandemic.
To say there have been no successes in the battle on misinformation in the digital realm would be too damning a statement. As the president initially downplayed the seriousness of COVID, fringe elements espoused wild conspiracy theories, and right-wing pundits sowed seeds of skepticism, scientists and journalists stepped to the plate each time to set the record straight with evidence-based information. However, the sheer volume of information, whether fact based or fantastical, presents as it’s own dilemma. By May of 2020, the WHO voiced concern over this “infodemic”, a destabilizing abundance of information, and passed resolution WHA73.1. The resolution challenged member states to counter the issue with action plans to distribute accurate information without stifling freedom of expression. As the head of the Public Health Emergency Management Team, I would have anticipated the threat of such an infodemic and assembled a “misinformation task force” consisting of public health experts, communications experts, and social media companies to immediately assess trends in misinformation and disinformation while developing strategies to take immediate action.
The initial objective of the task force would be to determine the most effective tactics in delivering information, whether it be wide-reaching public announcements or more direct case-by-case responses to misinformation. A study from the CDC ,”Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media Preemptively and Responsively”, has shown that there is little difference in the effectiveness of pre-emptive messaging versus reactive corrections. Additionally, little “backfire” effect was noted, meaning that accurate information propagated by the CDC did not result in a doubling down of misperceptions. Considering both pre-emptive and reactive approaches are equally effective, the taskforce may pursue both routes simultaneously. Declaring the infodemic and dissemination of misinformation as a national security threat, and coordinating with the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies to identify rumors and nefarious sources, could help our task force to liaison with social media platforms in developing strategies to identify threats of misperception. Often the first amendment is invoked to counter what is perceived as an affront to the individual’s right of free speech through social media platforms. While government organizations should not take explicit action to sensor the opinions of American citizens, we should consult with these platforms to recommend certain standards. Transparency may be established by publication of an evolving database listing misinformation that has been labeled harmful, and the intervention that was applied, allowing for all-inclusive oversight. There is a common misunderstanding that social media companies are obliged to allow every citizen unbridled use of their platform. However, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are not public spaces. They are companies in the private sector that bring in billion dollars of profit yearly, essentially by making a product of consumers as opposed to a product for consumers. While it should be encouraged that they place value on the spirit of free speech, there is no entitlement to unmitigated expression on their platform any more than there is in other places of business. In the case of mask wearing, private businesses are well within their rights to make wearing a mask a requirement for entry. In the interest of the public health and security of our nation, we should hold the same principle to social media platforms.
As head of the Emergency Management Team, I would consult with this misinformation task force to find optimal avenues for educating the public on how to identify and report misinformation. So called “echo chambers” or “bubbles” in online discourse develop out of a human tendency to avoid uncomfortable disagreement and to run with the pack. Users choose to interact with those who share their opinions and ensure this by impulsively downvoting and “unfollowing.” This has the effect of, intentionally or not, pruning their feed down to a comforting flow of affirmations. Complex algorithms, intended to maximize advertiser exposure, catalyze the process by recommending often politically volatile advertising from super PACS or other politically motivated organizations. Divisive and misinformed “fake news” is shared and “liked” more to convey an allegiance to vague ideology rather than any appreciation of the actual quality or content contained therein. The end result is that likeminded users are repeatedly exposed to the same narratives, and this repetition, more than the convincingness of the content, is what gives the narrative it’s validity. For this reason, we would avoid in all cases restating the misinformation in our corrections, alternatively choosing to offer fact and evidence-based information as a direct response.
After significant criticism, Facebook began flagging “fake news” content and providing links to appropriate sources starting around 2016. I would propose building upon this progress by not only countering with facts but also with quick tips on how to identify so-called “fake news.” Providing these tips in small digestible formats would ensure they’re in some way processed even by those who have no interest in educating themselves in digital literacy. Further, I would recommend that public educational institutions require digital literacy training in the form of online modules for all enrolled students on a yearly basis. Considering the adoption of online courses, and with the internet having become the predominant source of student research, this seems a logical and beneficial initiative for these institutions. The promotion of digital literacy is our best defense, as attempts to crowd out misinformation border on futile in the face of an infodemic.
When facing an unprecedented public health emergency on the scale of COVID-19 there is bound to be uncertainty no matter how well we manage. For example, the CDC recommended the public don masks in public only months after the surgeon general passionately discouraged their purchase, as well as publicly “flip-flopping” as to whether the virus is in fact airborne. Even more harmful than these missteps, however, was the lack of leadership and active undermining of the threat by the Trump Administration. As director of the Public Health Emergency Management Team, my priority would be to engage immediately with the internet and social media, where the resultant confusion and fear become anger and conspiracy. An assembled collective of social media, science, and public health experts would have the ability to act early in identifying and countering false information, disseminating preemptive evidence-based information, and educate the public on how to navigate content in the era of “fake news.” Unlike COVID, there is no vaccine for the infodemic. Like COVID, manipulation and misinformation aren’t going anywhere. Only through active and innovative efforts can we hope to stem the tide and encourage immunity.
Sources:
Bursztyn, Leonardo and Rao, Aakaash and Roth, Christopher and Yanagizawa-Drott, David, Misinformation During a Pandemic (September 1, 2020). University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3580487
CDC’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program: Every Response is Local. (2021, May 18). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/whatwedo/phep.htm
Hart, P. S., Chinn, S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage. Science Communication, 1075547020950735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735
Levenson, E. (2020, June 26). Public health experts are increasingly frustrated with America’s lack of leadership on coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/us/public-health-politics-coronavirus/index.html
Merchant RM, Lurie N. Social Media and Emergency Preparedness in Response to Novel Coronavirus. JAMA. 2020;323(20):2011–2012. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4469
Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement. (2021, June 24). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/phep.htm
Rogers, L. S., & JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2021, March 24). Meeting COVID-19 Misinformation and Disinformation Head-On. Retrieved from https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/meeting-covid-19-misinformation-and-disinformation-head-on.html
Rothwell, J., & Makridis, C. (2020, September 18). Politics is wrecking America’s pandemic response. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/17/politics-is-wrecking-americas-pandemic-response/
Singal, J. (2020, May 08). The Theory That Explains the Politicization of the Coronavirus. Retrieved from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/the-theory-that-explains-the-politicization-of-coronavirus.html
Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2021). Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media Preemptively and Responsively. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 27(2), 396-403. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2702.203139
Zhang, L., Li, H., & Chen, K. (2020). Effective Risk Communication for Public Health Emergency: Reflection on the COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) Outbreak in Wuhan, China. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 8(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010064
