Suffering from Vaccines or from Government? : Partisan Bias in COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Coverage
This research highlights how bipartisanship influences public opinion on vaccines, addressing a societal issue but is incremental in applying existing methods to new data.
The study investigated partisan bias in COVID-19 vaccine adverse events coverage, finding that conservative media reported adverse events more frequently than liberal media, with coverage uncorrelated to real-world severity, and conservative supporters were more likely to write popular comments.
Vaccine adverse events have been presumed to be a relatively objective measure that is immune to political polarization. The real-world data, however, shows the correlation between presidential disapproval ratings and the subjective severity of adverse events. This paper investigates the partisan bias in COVID vaccine adverse events coverage with language models that can classify the topic of vaccine-related articles and the political disposition of news comments. Based on 90K news articles from 52 major newspaper companies, we found that conservative media are inclined to report adverse events more frequently than their liberal counterparts, while the coverage itself was statistically uncorrelated with the severity of real-world adverse events. The users who support the conservative opposing party were more likely to write the popular comments from 2.3K random sampled articles on news platforms. This research implies that bipartisanship can still play a significant role in forming public opinion on the COVID vaccine even after the majority of the population's vaccination