Introduction
In the modern world, the media shapes the way individuals view public affairs, threats, and international politics. Fundamentally, media coverage of a particular crisis or an issue can influence the situation just as governmental decisions or activists’ actions. Thus, the overarching power of the modern media can determine not only how people view the issue, but also how the scenario unfolds. Speculations and bias are as common and widespread in media coverage as a truthful narration of events, if not more prominent. Therefore, a modern information consumer has to critically evaluate the knowledge that articles and reports disseminate to the population. However, for a media expert, a more in-depth examination of the media piece can provide more insight into how the readers are affected. This essay will examine whether media has a significant influence on individuals’ perceptions and uncover some hidden bias by exploring the article on COVID-19 coverage via discourse and framing strategies application.
History of the Media Analysis
In western culture, the affirmation of postmodernist interpretation of truth has activated a new era for media. Although the development of the field began recently, its first manifestations can be traced to the middle of the eighteenth century, when the first media monitoring canter was founded in London by a newsagent named Romeike (Kaulback, 2016). The further growth of media analysis can be seen in the transition from individual media analysts’ practice to agencies, corporations, and governments who predominantly perform media analysis nowadays (Kaulback, 2016). Media analysis is crucial to ensure the unity of understanding of the particular issue. General opinions regarding the interpretation of what media analysis means seem equivalent and conforming. From this perspective, media analysis can be defined as thinking critically about the impact of media on the distribution of power in society, nature, agendas of media powers, and social knowledge (Stocchetti and Kukkonen, 2011).
The importance of media analysis appears evident as it is aimed at revealing the strategies and tools intended to manipulate public opinion and, consequently, influence the socio-political situation in a country. According to Hua et al. (2018), media analysis is one of the constituents of the broader notion of media literacy, which, in the contemporary world, is an essential competency for content consumers. Hua et al. (2018, p. 371) state that “as an audience, it is not complete acceptance of information, but a process of “processing” information, from selective acceptance to information judgment to information adoption and information dissemination.” Hence, media analysis and media literacy are two interrelated processes, where the first one leads to the acquisition of the second. The practice of critical evaluation of media by the general public is an outcome that displays the importance of media analysis. Fridkin et al. (2015) demonstrate the value of media analysis by investigating how the method is applied in depicting race and police brutality. The researchers emphasize that “two‑thirds of Facebook users (66%) and almost six of 10 Twitter users (59%) get some news from these sites” (Fridkin et al, 2015). In this way, the media shapes the public’s attitude that tends to receive information from social networks. It shifts opinions on a variety of issues, making its analysis a way to uncover and thus challenge social injustice for a number of researchers. The perceived authority of a media outlet in a society reflects the value of knowledge and the importance of its representation in a specific piece of media (Stocchetti and Kukkonen, 2011). The power that media professionals possess in the social construct of reality leads to a responsibility that could potentially be overlooked.
““We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” Critical Analysis
“”We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” by Liam Mannix, as an example of how media shapes the perception of crisis, will be examined by the application of discourse analysis and framing. Both strategies mainly aim to analyze the institutional framework’s statements and endowed with a historical, social, and intellectual connotation (Berger, 2017). For instance, texts are studied by taking the conditions of their formation and extralinguistic factors into account (Berger, 2017). The general methodological principle of the approach lies in its interdisciplinarity (Berger, 2017). Thus, both strategies can be utilized to examine the article mentioned above.
Firstly, as it concerns discourse analysis, it represents a critical attitude to knowledge about the world, examining the relationship between learning, social processes, and social behavior. According to Johnstone (2018, p. 23), discourse analysis examines how communication tools like language, text, and verbal talk can convey “meaningful symbolic behavior.” More precisely, however, the discourse approach examines the way actual structures of paragraphs, stories, and narratives can translate into culturally shaped interpretive principles and affect the way a person who perceives the information can be influenced. Weigand (2017, p. 43) also argued that discourse analysis “means largely thematic (content-based) studies of language, texts, or communication as they work in society and history, with little tie to syntax.” This explanation links the use of literal language as an interpretation of the written text in several dimensions: cultural, linguistic, personal, etc.
The method may help to determine the conditionality of how the issue of vaccine funding is presented in the article within the current socio‑political context. Critical discourse analysis “interested in the way text functions in terms of politics, equity, and power in society” can be used to examine not only content but the cultural and political implications of the article (Weigand, 2017, p. 17). Taking into consideration the heated debates that unraveled around the topic and the political repercussions that taking a stance entails, the delivery of ideas in the article could reveal some specific media bias.
Framing analysis, in its turn, is also useful in interpreting media practices, specifically the medical field, and how the audience learns about public health. For example, Foley, Ward, and McNaughton (2019, p. 1810) urge researchers to imply “more diverse, complex, and nonlinear multidisciplinary perspectives in understanding processes of medicalization from a viewpoint of framing.” They stress the importance of exploring the issue not only from a single perspective but also on a quantitative framing analysis to place the information into medical, behavioral, and societal frames. This approach, therefore, can uncover some additional insights and, possibly, the bias in the media narrative. Dan (2019) argues that health media coverage for the general public has to be analyzed by embedding it into various dimensions of politics, society, and other application frameworks. Consequently, the multidimensional framing approach to media can assess not only the quality of information but also discover its implications to other values for mass-media consumption dimensions.
Bias in “” We was so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” by Liam Mannix
The presenting bias in “” We was so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” is somewhat noticeable, as the coverage of the article is slanted in favor of Professor Petrovsky, a scientist involved in vaccine development. The report covers an accident that took place in 2010 since the vaccine that was developed at that time could potentially serve as a basis for a new vaccine that could help in the prevention of COVID-19 spread. The story is almost entirely presented from the point of view of the medical personnel, who testifies against a US government agency that reduced Australian laboratory funding (Mannix, 2020). The lack of commentaries from the opposing side of the clash is reasoned by the agency not responding to requests for comments. The incorporation of multiple sides of a conflict, varying, and even opposing views on a problem is an integral factor that contributes to comprehensive and sophisticated media coverage. The article revolves mainly around one perspective as the author chooses the perspective with which it is easier for the audience to empathize.
The narrative can also be linked to mainstream bias, expressed by the tendency to adhere to the general direction in media coverage and avoid the inclusion of controversial topics or opinions into the news corpus. Elejalde, Ferres, and Herder (2018, p. 28) highlight that “for individuals as well as for society as a whole it is important to recognize and understand media bias that is shaped through underlying general political or socio-economic orientations.” Thus, uncovering biases in media, especially in times of a pandemic, which became an unavoidable topic for media outlets, may not be straightforward. “We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” covers a question that seems omnipresent and to state that the article suffers from mainstream bias solely on this ground is unfair. It may be noted that the text suffers from mainstream bias, because of the angle from which it covers the topic. The author seems to take a widely accepted stance, and points of view that could be considered out of favor are absent from the report.
False balance bias is another hidden fallacy that can be observed in the article. According to Koehler (2016), the bias makes the author display unequal evidence for both sides of the conflict, resulting in one of them being weaker and the opposing view appearing more reliable and more trustworthy. Similarly, the author of this article has based his writing on the quotes of the researchers that were denied funding. On the other hand, he did not provide enough factual evidence or quotes for the other side of the argument, the funding instances of the US and Australia. The unequal balance of information makes the stance of the article one-sided and communicates the apparent supremacy of the point that is covered most, giving little attention to the opposition and rebuttal. Such an approach influences the readers and makes them believe that funding was cut unnecessarily, thus villainizing the countries’ governments.
Framing bias is also evident in the article “”We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut.” Framing bias as a tool to present information in a way that will suit the writer’s agenda or goal has been identified as one of the most common when using reported and unreported speech (Lazaridou, Krestel, and Felix Naumann, 2017). The article under review implies that the funding cuts were not a necessary measure to switch attention to the more pressing issues at the time, but allegedly a fallacy in the judgment of the US government. The author frames the situation to suit his goal of depicting the financial shortages in testing as an intended mistake. “These patterns can introduce deliberate or accidental bias in the news articles and by extension in the readers’ everyday news consumption” (Lazaridou, Krestel and Felix Naumann, 2017, p. 948). However, he fails to address the fact that these financial complications were connected with the necessity to develop vaccines for more dangerous health threats at the time, like Ebola.
Certain parts of “We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut” focus on what could have happened rather than on what is happening. For instance, Professor Petrovsky (Mannix, 2020, para. 10) claims that “if these vaccine trials had gone ahead – and they looked good – we would have felt in much better shape now.” This proneness to concentrate on what might occur given certain conditions signals the presence of speculative content bias. It should be noted that the source of the bias is not the author, but the interviewees. However, the Maxxin (2020, para. 2) introduces his article by stating that “had those trials gone ahead in 2010, a vaccine for the deadly pandemic might be available right now.” Vigorous discussions around the pandemic make specific speculative topics look tempting – these circumstances enhance the value of journalistic integrity and standards.
The author of the article, Liam Mannix, is The Age’s and Sydney Morning Herald’s science reporter who has been following the deployment of the pandemic since its beginning and concentrated thematically on the field before that. The author’s experience in covering similar issues renders him an adequate candidate to report on vaccine development. Even though the situation presented by Mannix is displeasing, the general COVID-19 vaccine development landscape seems extensive and spread across and funded by numerous courtiers (Lurie et al., 2020). It is claimed that the effort in response to the pandemic is unprecedented in terms of scale and speed (Tung et al., 2020). Presenting ideas transparently and straightforwardly is one of the principal characteristics of unbiased media and is a competence that professionals gain through practice (Karlsson and Clerwall, 2019). Despite the desired objectiveness and perceived professionalism, it is not uncommon for an article to concentrate exclusively on specific ideas, trying to sell them. As the article under consideration seems to revolve around one point of view, its message could be considered by some a political one; the opinion on the topic is pre-made rather than evolved in the process.
The way the story in “We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut)” is told drives the reader to identify with the professionals interviewed, since the reader’s interest is directly engaged. The problem the article undertakes to cover enhances the sense of complicity and emotional involvement between the audience, the journalist, and the interviewee forming a sort of coalition against a distinct third party. The perspective of the people attached to the fund cutting seems to be excluded not deliberately but as a result of their unwillingness to comment. The viewpoint of the US National Institutes of Health, who provided Professor Petrovsky with funding in 2004, is indispensable to form an overarching vision (Mannix, 2020). As a result of the absence of multiple perspectives, the depiction of the events in the article may be considered fragmentary. The objectiveness of the report could be enhanced by the inclusion of alternate points of view.
The use of emotive language in news coverage, particularly concerning a sensitive and heated topic, the category to which the COVID-19 pandemic belongs, is a method aimed to make readers react emotionally. The vocabulary choices present in “We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut)” are principally neutral with a few exceptions that can be found in the speech of the interviewees. The text is constructed on the testimonies given by several researchers who underwent funding cuts and the author’s remarks that provide context and direct the flow of information.
The avoidance of emotive language ensures the degree of balance and objectivity present in the text. Even though the arguments are mainly provided by one side, which results in a lack of broader context, the author manages to render the article convincing, by including data-driven reasoning and professional opinions. The memorability of the article lies in the tone of despair and impression of lost opportunities that it creates – even with minimal usage of emotive language the author manages to involve readers’ sentiments. The sense of reality is achieved through the incorporation of factual information and the acuteness of the issue covered. In this way, the message transmitted by the text appears to be clear enough to prevent the emergence of utterly dissimilar interpretations, despite the different ways the audience perceives information and cultural backgrounds.
Conclusion
The critical value of the media era is communication, the constant transfer of emotions, ideas, images that fill the modern human experience. In the process of virtual communication, media acts not only as an intermediary, but also as a full participant in the communication process. The current socio-political state of the world heightens the need for media analysis and criticism, as it is capable of defusing the manipulation and bias directed at constructing alternative visions of the situation.
Reference List
Dan, V. (2019) Integrative framing analysis. Salt Lake City: Routledge.
Elejalde, E., Ferres, L., and Herder, E. (2018) ‘On the nature of real and perceived bias in the mainstream media’, PLOS ONE, 13(3), pp. 1–28.
Foley, K., Ward, P. and McNaughton, D. (2019) ‘Innovating qualitative framing analysis for purposes of media analysis within public health inquiry’, Qualitative Health Research, 29(12), pp.1810-1822.
Johnstone, B. (2018) Discourse analysis. Hoboken: Blackwell Publisher.
Karlsson, M. and Clerwall, C. (2019) ‘Cornerstones in journalism: according to citizens’,Journalism Studies, 20(8), pp. 1184-99.
Kaulback, M. (2016) A brief history of media monitoring (and analysis).
Koehler, D. (2016) ‘Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion?’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(1), pp. 24-38. Web.
Lazaridou, K., Krestel, R. and Naumann, F. (2017) ‘Identifying media bias by analyzing reported speech’, IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM).
Lurie, N. et al. (2020) ‘Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed’, The New England Journal of Medicine, pp. 1–5.
Mannix, L. (2020) “We were so close”: Three potential COVID-19 vaccines had funding cut.
Stocchetti, M. and Kukkonen, K. (2011) Critical media analysis: an introduction for media professionals. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Tung, L. et al. (2020) ‘The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 19, pp. 305–306.
Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2017) ‘Digital divide: impact of media literacy’, The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, pp. 1–8.
Weigand, E. (2017) The Routledge handbook of language and dialogue. Basingstoke: Taylor & Francis Ltd.