This article is interested in the ways in which a serious public health issue, the COVID-19 pandemic, was used to categorize and reconfigure sections of the British citizenry into conformists and deviants. In constructing these categories, the print press was utilizing specific labels to identify those who were sceptical and noncompliant of preventative health strategies. Scepticism of Covid policy was reported along political lines, distinguishing between right-leaning conspiracy theorists who pose threats to health and safety, and those sceptics who were simply without access to accurate information and guidance. In its claims-making activity, the print media was portraying some concerns as more legitimate than other equally significant social issues. The politicization of a biological vector is not without serious implications for public health communication and, ultimately, compliance with disease preventative measures.
AustinJL (1975) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BakerCE (1998) The media that citizens need. University of Pennsylvania Law Review147: 317.
3.
BanaiIPBanaiBMiklousicI (2022) Beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, compliance with the preventive measures, and trust in government medical officials. Current Psychology41(10): 7448–7458.
4.
BeckerHS (1963) Outsiders. New York: Free Press, vol. 1973.
5.
BernhardtDKrasaSPolbornM (2008) Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics92(5-6): 1092–1104.
6.
BestJ (1993) Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern about Child-Victims. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BestJ (2001) Promoting bad statistics. Society38(3): 10–15.
8.
BolsenTDruckmanJNCookFL (2014) How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly78(1): 1–26.
9.
BraithwaiteJ (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
11.
BreakwellGMFinoEJaspalR (2021) The COVID-19 preventive behaviors index: development and validation in two samples from the United Kingdom. Evaluation and the Health Professions44(1): 77–86.
12.
BrunsA (2003) Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: collaborative online news. Media International Australia107(1): 31–44.
13.
CacciatoreMAScheufeleDAIyengarS (2016) The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society19(1): 7–23.
14.
CapurroGJardineCGTustinJ, et al. (2022) Moral panic about “covidiots” in Canadian newspaper coverage of COVID-19. PLoS One17(1): e0261942.
15.
ChenailRJ (2012) Conducting qualitative data analysis: reading line-by-line, but analyzing by meaningful qualitative units. Qualitative Report17(1): 266–269.
16.
CushionSKilbyAThomasR, et al. (2015) Newspapers, impartiality and television news: intermedia agenda-setting during the 2015 UK general election campaign. Journalism Studies19(2): 162–181.
17.
DebusMTosunJ (2021) Political ideology and vaccination willingness: implications for policy design. Policy Sciences54(3): 477–491.
18.
DeuzeM (2003) The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media and Society5(2): 203–230.
19.
DruckmanJNPetersonESlothuusR (2013) How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review107(1): 57–79.
20.
DuanWBuHChenZ (2020) COVID-19-related stigma profiles and risk factors among people who are at high risk of contagion. Social Science and Medicine266: 113425.
21.
EberlJHuberRAGreussingE (2021) From populism to the ‘plandemic’: why populists believe in COVID-19 conspiracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties31(Supp1): 272–284.
22.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
23.
FiskRJ (2021) Barriers to vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) control: experience from the United States. Global Health Journal5(1): 51–55.
24.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1987) The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology3(1): 137–177.
25.
GlaserBGStraussALBeerS (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Transaction.
26.
GoffmanE (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
HallSCritcherCJeffersonT, et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.
29.
HansenA (2003) Claims-making and framing in British newspaper coverage of the ‘Brent Spar’ controversy. In: AllenSAdamBCarterC (eds), Environmental Risks and the Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 55–72.
30.
HarperCASatchellLPFidoD, et al. (2021) Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction19: 1875–1888.
31.
HartPSChinnSSorokaS (2020) Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication42(5): 679–697.
32.
HöijerB (2011) Social representations theory. Nordicom Review32(2): 3–16.
JaspalRNerlichB (2023) Social representations of COVID-19 sceptics: denigration, demonization, and disenfranchisement. Politics, Groups, and Identities11(4): 750–770.
35.
JimenezJLMarrLCRandallK, et al. (2022) What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID‐19 pandemic?Indoor Air32(8): e13070.
36.
JoffeHYardleyL (2003) Content and thematic analysis. In: MarksDFYardleyL (eds), Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 56–68.
37.
JuenCMJankowskiMHuberRA, et al. (2023) Who wants COVID-19 vaccination to be compulsory? The impact of party cues, left-right ideology, and populism. Politics Studies43(3): 330–350.
38.
KahnemanD (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58(9): 697–720.
39.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39(4): 341–350.
40.
KigerMEVarpioL (2020) Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher42(8): 846–854.
41.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJ, et al. (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
42.
KuppersAReiserM (2022). Ideological extremism or far-right attitudes? The role of ideology for COVID-19 scepticism. Journal of Representative Democracy58(4): 481–499.
LangeMMonscheuerO (2021) Spreading the Disease: Protest in Times of Pandemics. Health Economics31(12): 2664–2679.
45.
LasicaJD (2002) The promise of the daily me. Online Journalism Review2.
46.
LatkinCDaytonLCoyleC, et al. (2021) The association between climate change attitudes and COVID-19 attitudes: the link is more than political ideology. The Journal of Climate Change and Health5: 100099.
47.
LeeCYangTInchocoGD, et al. (2021) Viral visualizations: how coronavirus sceptics use orthodox data practices to promote unorthodox science. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1–18.
48.
LemertE (1951) Primary and secondary deviation. Crime. Critical Concepts in Sociology3: 603–607.
49.
LosekeDR (2003) Thinking about Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
50.
MaddowR (2010). Theodore H. White lecture on press and politics. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
51.
MillerMRiechertB (2001) The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In: ReeseSDGandyOHGrantAE (eds). Framing Public Life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 107–121.
52.
MorseJM (1997) Perfectly healthy, but dead: the myth of inter-rater reliability. Qualitative Health Research7(4): 445–447.
53.
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.
54.
MyrickJGChenJ (2022) Schadenfreude after watching the news: how audiences respond to media coverage of partisans disclosing illnesses. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly99(1): 55–135.
55.
NapoliPM (2011) Audience Evolution: New Technologies and the Transformation of Media Audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
56.
NerlichBJaspalR (2021) Social representations of ‘social distancing’ in response to COVID-19 in the UK media. Current Sociology69(4): 566–583.
57.
NielsenRKFletcherRKalogeropoulosA, et al. (2020) Communications in the Coronavirus Crisis: Lessons for the Second Wave. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
PanZKosickiGM (1993) Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse. Political Communication10(1): 55–75.
61.
ParkerI (1992) Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology. London: Routledge.
62.
PennycookGMcPhetresJBagoB, et al. (2022) Beliefs about COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: a novel test of political polarization and motivated reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin48(5): 750–765.
63.
RomerDJamiesonKH (2020) Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the US. Social Science and Medicine263: 113356.
64.
RothgerberHWilsonTWhaleyD, et al. (2020) Politicizing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ideological Differences in Adherence to Social Distancing. PsyArXiv. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/k23cv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/k23cv/
65.
ScanlonTM (2013) Interpreting blame. In: TognazziniNCoatesDJ (eds), On Blame: Its Nature and Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 84–99.
ShermanLW (1993) Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency30(4): 445–473.
68.
SpectorMKitsuseJI (1973) Social problems: a reformulation. Social Problems21(2): 145–159.
69.
SpectorMKitsuseJI (1977) Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
70.
StangorCLynchLDuanC, et al. (1992) Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology62(2): 207.
71.
StanleyMLBarrNPetersK, et al. (2021) Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thinking and Reasoning27(3): 464–477.
72.
ThomsonSIpEC (2020) COVID-19 emergency measures and the impending authoritarian pandemic. Journal of Law and the Biosciences7(1): lsaa064.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2008) The contingency of intermedia agenda setting: a longitudinal study in Belgium. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly85(4): 860–877.
76.
V’kovskiPKratzelASteinerS, et al. (2021) Coronavirus biology and replication: implications for SARS-CoV-2. Nature Reviews Microbiology19(3): 155–170.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
