JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Infodemiology is a growing public health concern aggravating the dissemination of scientific facts to a population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as a therapeutic solution emerged as a case of misinfodemic. While the internet and social media were primary conduits for Hydroxychloroquine infodemiology, cable television (TV) networks served as vital sources. Claimed experts are allocated cable TV airtime to discuss and disseminate scientific facts about diseases and health in broadcasts that shape the subsequent infodemiology patterns. However, understanding how the information spread by credible experts influences the allocated airtime in cable TV remains a gap.

Objective:

This study investigates the experts’ credibility as a doctor (DOCTOR), being from the government (GOVTEXPERT), and the sentiments (SENTIMENT) expressed in the cable TV discussion broadcasts influence the allocated airtime (AIRTIME). While DOCTOR and GOVTEXPERT reflect on the expert’s credibility, SENTIMENT points to the information credibility around infodemiology. This study is contextualized to the controversial discussions in three major cable TV networks in the United States.

Methods:

We collected broadcast transcribes on relevant hydroxychloroquine broadcasts on cable TV between March and October 2020. We coded the experts as DOCTOR or GOVTEXPERT using publicly available data. Using a machine learning algorithm, we mined the transcriptions to code the sentiments of broadcasts into POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, NEUTRAL, and MIXED SENTIMENTS.

Results:

We find DOCTOR is associated with less AIRTIME (P=.01) as a counterintuitive finding, whereas GOVTEXPERT is associated with more airtime (P<.001) in a base model. The interaction effects show that government experts with a doctorate receive less airtime (P=.03). Sentiments in broadcasts play a role, more so for NEGATIVE (P<.001), NEUTRAL (p=.00,) and MIXED (p=.03) sentiments’ direct effects on airtime. However, only the government experts with POSITIVE sentiments during the broadcast receive more airtime (P<.001). Furthermore, NEGATIVE sentiments in broadcasts reflect less airtime both for DOCTOR (P<.001) and GOVTEXPERT (P<.001).

Conclusions:

Although source credibility is an essential aspect of monitoring and reflecting on infodemic issues, cable TV media seems to have different dynamics in creating an effect because of its appeal of characters used and the broadcasting process. Surprisingly, the findings point out that doctors do not have good appeal. In contrast, government experts as sources allure audiences to get more airtime on cable TV on the contentious topic of Hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy in treating COVID-19. Doctors presenting facts with negative sentiments is not helpful either. However, government experts have better airtime when they radiate positive sentiments during the broadcasting. The study findings have substantial implications on unraveling the puzzle around the source credibility issues for infoveillance.