To discover the means of persuasion available to experts who embrace the responsibility of public communication in times of crisis, this study uses a text/countertext method of rhetorical analysis on U.S. newspaper editorials by scientists writing about COVID-19 policy. Model arguments to opposition audiences on pandemic restrictions and vaccine policy were selected for close reading. We examined how writers in a pro-con debate in a centrist newspaper appealed mainly to like-minded readers, failing to make arguments designed to change the opinions of those who did not already agree with them. The lack of rhetorical sensitivity in these editorials suggests a need for scientists to better utilize existing resources of language and argument when addressing opposition audiences. Exemplary editorials to opposition audiences in right-leaning and left-leaning newspapers were then examined to illustrate more promising strategies of public persuasion in highly partisan times.
BloomfieldEF (2019) Communication Strategies for Engaging Climate Skeptics: Religion and the Environment. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BloomfieldEFVan SwolLMChangCTWillesSAhnPH (2020) The effects of establishing intimacy and consubstantiality on group discussions about climate change solutions. Science Communication42(3): 369–394.
6.
CalvilloDPRossBJGarciaRJBSmelterTJRutchickAM (2020) Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science11(8): 1119–1128.
CeccarelliL (2025) ‘We feel that it is no longer possible to remain uninvolved’: A rhetorical history of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In: PietrucciPCeccarelliL (eds) Scientists, Politics, and Public Controversy. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
9.
CeccarelliLSyfertC (2023) Climate scientists as rhetorical citizens: Public argumentation in persuasive op-eds. In: BoogaartRGarssenBJansenHVan LeeuwenMPilgramRReunekerA (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Leiden: Sic Sat, pp. 196–204.
ColemanMC (2017) Rhetorical logic bombs and the fragmented online publics of vaccine science. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric7(4): 203–216.
12.
ColemanMC (2018) The role of patience in arguments about vaccine science. Western Journal of Communication82(4): 513–528.
13.
ConditCLynchJWindermanE (2012) Recent rhetorical studies in public understanding of science: Multiple purposes and strengths. Public Understanding of Science21(4): 386–400.
DanischR (2011) Risk assessment as rhetorical practice: The ironic mathematics behind terrorism, banking, and public policy. Public Understanding of Science22(2): 236–251.
16.
DominguezMLafitaIMateaA (2017) Taking climate change seriously: An analysis of op-ed articles in Spanish press. Public Understanding of Science26(7): 861–871.
17.
DouglasHE (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
18.
FahnestockJ (2020) Rhetorical citizenship and the science of science communication. Argumentation34(3): 371–387.
GoodwinJ (2015) Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In: van EemerenFH, et al (eds) Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 489–497.
GrossA (1994) The role of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science3(1): 3–23.
25.
HabelPD (2012) Following the opinion leaders? The dynamics of influence among media opinion, the public, and politicians. Political Communication29(3): 257–277.
JasinskiJ (2001) Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
JohnsonJ (2016) ‘A man’s mouth is his castle’: The midcentury fluoridation controversy and the visceral public. Quarterly Journal of Speech102(1): 1–20.
29.
JohnsonJXenosM (2019) Building better bridges: Toward a transdisciplinary science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly28(2): 112–123.
KahanDM (2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology36(1): 1–43.
32.
KowalchukLMcLaughlinN (2009) Mapping the social space of opinion: Public Sociology and the op-ed in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology34(3): 697–728.
LynchJZollerH (2015) Recognizing differences and commonalities: The rhetoric of health and medicine and critical-interpretive health communication. Communication Quarterly63(5): 498–503.
38.
LysaghtTKerridgeI (2012) Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005-6). Public Understanding of Science21(2): 195–210.
MandoJ (2022) Scientist citizens: Nontraditional and alternative approaches to scientific communication. In: Hanganu-BreschCZerbeMJCutrufelloGMaciSM (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 235–244.
41.
MannMSchleiferC (2019) Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces99(1): 305–332.
42.
MooreK (2009) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
MottaMSteculaDFarhartC (2020) How right-leaning media coverage of COVID-19 facilitated the spread of misinformation in the early stages of the pandemic in the U.S. Canadian Journal of Political Science53(2): 335–342.
44.
MurphyMK (2022) Reconsidering the role of scientific research in anti-toxics rhetoric through perspective by incongruity. Western Journal of Communication87(3): 489–507.
45.
National Academy of Sciences (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
46.
Neville-ShepardR (2019) Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: On the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump. Argumentation and Advocacy55(3): 175–193.
47.
PielkeRA Jr (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PietrucciPCeccarelliL (2019) Scientist citizens: Rhetoric and responsibility in L’Aquila. Rhetoric and Public Affairs22(1): 95–128.
VosoughiSRoyDAralS (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science359(6380): 1146–1151.
53.
WalshL (2013) Scientists as Prophets: A Rhetorical Genealogy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
WalshL (2017) Understanding the rhetoric of climate science debates. WIREs Climate Change8: 1–7.
55.
ZerbeMJ (2019) Paging Paul Krugman: Toward a topoi of an exemplar public intellectual in natural and physical sciences. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication49(1): 70–104.
