We spent six weeks asking people about media coverage of the Coronavirus: Here's what they told us

Between 16 April and 27 May 2020, we carried out an online news diary study with 200 people who were broadly representative of the UK population. The six-week study tracked their news consumption habits and attitudes towards different media at a critical point in the health crisis, as well as their knowledge and understanding of the pandemic and how it was handled in the UK. We are also in the process of completing a content analysis study of the UK’s main evening television news bulletins during this period. 

We are still making sense of the diaries, but so far we have published ten short articles exploring a range of issues, such as the role of fact checking during the pandemic, the level of trust in different media organisations, and how journalists should question political decisions and hold the government to account for its handling of the health crisis. 

Here’s a flavour of the findings, which include some research related to the ongoing content analysis study: 

We found that while many people could easily identify blatant acts of disinformation, such as 5G being responsible for the coronavirus, they were less knowledgeable about how the UK was handling the crisis compared to other countries. For example, many respondents did not realise the UK death rate was one of the highest according to internationalcomparative data.s If the public think the UK has a comparatively low death rate – we argued - it might follow that they think the government’s handling of COVID-19 was proportionate, given it is a global pandemic. 

Far from the public losing faith in journalists or asking them to rally round the flag during a health crisis, our research shows of our most respondents trusted broadcast media and wanted more critical scrutiny of the UK government. This suggests broadcasters should not be cowed by politicians or media commentators, but emboldened by the public who want them to challenge the UK government about how well they are handling the pandemic. 

Our research revealed many people did not want journalists to pursue speed and speculation in coverage of the pandemic, instead preferring them to instead focus on verifying facts and questioning misleading political statements. We found the BBC’s Reality Check service provided greater scrutiny of the UK government’s target to test people for COVID-19 than either BBC Breaking news or the BBC’s News at Ten. By fact-checking more prominently in TV news bulletins, we argued it might encourage politicians to think twice about making dubious claims. 

Whilst most of our participants acknowledged the need for politics to inform day-to-day coverage, they felt it should be counterbalanced to a greater extent by independent analysis of government decision-making from health experts and scientists, along with more reporting about the wider human impact of the disease. With the arrival of the prime minister’s new baby still attracting media attention, our research suggested most people do not want personality-driven coverage. They told us they wanted reporting that is in tune with the needs and concerns of ordinary people experiencing the pandemic. 

Our research shows that news audiences perceive misinformation about COVID-19 not only in terms of wild conspiracy theories, or as false or misleading news, but also as confusing news coverage or a product of government messaging. All journalists have a vital role in countering this misinformation – we argue – by independently checking and, where appropriate, challenging government messaging more robustly. 

We found that many people were unclear about what social distancing measures they should be following in different parts of the UK. While we found TV news bulletins accurately communicated the distinction between England and the other nations of the UK, many newspapers prominently made reference to the UK or England-only or did not specify the geographical relevance of the lockdown measures. We argued journalists need to repeatedly and explicitly communicate how different governments across the UK are handling the health crisis in order to enhance public understanding. 

By mid-May, our research suggested, many people had become more aware that the UK has a high death rate, but there remained widespread confusion and suspicion about the UK government’s figures and comparisons with other countries. Many did not still realise the UK’s high death toll compared to other countries. We argued that although the UK government no longer publishes internationally comparative data about the pandemic, journalists should continue to report them so the public can accurately and fairly compare how the UK handled the crisis with other nations' responses. 

Our study of UK television news coverage of COVID-19 showed broadcasters have regularly reported from the frontline of NHS operations in intensive care units. Healthcare workers were usually the face of the stories and often making direct pleas to the public about observing social distancing during the lockdown. We argued in-hospital reporting represented an important public service as broadcasters were being transparent about the severity of the health crisis. Audience responses from our diary study overwhelmingly highlighted the informative value of media coverage inside ICUs, while also raising important ethical questions about impact on healthcare workers and operational safety, patient privacy, and the fine editorial line between news reporting and media spectacle. 

The turmoil about whether Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, broke the UK’s lockdown rules fuelled anger about the government, our study found a few days after the story broke. Our research also revealed many participants had become more critical of the government’s decisions and wanted media coverage to reflect their more critical stance compared to when we first asked them in April. Over the course of our study, participants had made many references to some of the salient issues facing the UK’s management of the crisis, such as testing and tracing COVID-19 cases, protecting critical workers, and policing social distancing measures. While the Cummings affair attracted a lot of public interest, we argue that if continued to dominate media attention it could also prove a distraction from many other important issues.  

Over the six-week study, our respondents have consistently said they wanted broadcasters to provide accurate and impartial information, with journalists regularly fact-checking political statements and challenging any dubious claims. We found broadcasters may have helped people become fairly confident in spotting egregious examples of fake news. But many participants were confused by more routine political decisions, most strikingly lockdown measures that can affect people in England differently to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For broadcasters to more effectively counter misinformation, our research tells us it is not only about boldly questioning what politicians say and holding the government to account. It is about identifying what people are most confused about and finding ways to raise their level of understanding about complex and contentious issues. 

Thanks for taking the time to read about our research so far. We would also encourage you to read all our articles in full and get in touch with any thoughts and ideas you may have about our study.