Current Research: Alternative media framing of COVID-19 risks
Since completing my Ph.D., I have been drawn towards exploring how early coverage of COVID-19 was framed by Alternative Media Personalities (AMPs). I had noticed that between January 1st and March 30th, 2020, there seemed to have been disproportionately more coverage of COVID-19 emerging from fringe, right-wing, AMPs then there had been produced from credible scientific publishers on Youtube. A brief analysis of ten credible scientific publishers revealed that only Nature Video, Scientific American, Science Magazine, and New Scientist had produced any COVID-19 content (8 videos, totaling 51 minutes). By comparison, Mister Metokur (a popular AMP on the alternative/dissident/far right) had produced 12 videos that totaled 1,895 minutes of content. Comparing views also indicated that viewers on Youtube more readily engage with Metokur’s content (1,032,991 views) than with content from credible scientific platforms (409,200 views).
Given the relative popularity of Metokur’s content, this generates questions as to how Metokur introduced specific frames on COVID-19 risks to his audience, and how those frames may have influenced the perceptions on COVID-19 risks. Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) as a conceptual tool for analysing risk, this current project will conduct a framing analysis across all 12 of Metokurs streams. The framing analysis will explore two aspects of the Information Mechanism of SARF (Uncertainty and Certainty), and four aspects of the Response Mechanism of SARF (Dread, Blame, Trust, Stigma). It is expected that results will correspond with findings from my Ph.D. study in that, as an AMP, Metokur will disproportionately rely on Certainty and Blame frames to characterise COVID-19 as a highly specific threat the white, working-class, families that were produced by the established neoliberal social order.
