Readers’ comments of UK online news media about the Zika virus: a qualitative content analysis

Abstract Background In 2016, Zika virus disease became a global viral public health threat. Although the Zika virus predominantly affected low-income and middle-income countries, WHO's zika communications strategy also targeted non-endemic countries where residents might travel to endemic areas. A key source of public information was online news media. Online articles often feature user-generated content from readers responding to journalists’ news articles. This study aimed to understand how readers’ comments add to and alter media representations of emerging viral threats. Methods Qualitative content analysis of 3218 online readers’ comments on 27 UK news media stories about the Zika virus, drawn from four online publication websites (Daily Mail, Independent, Guardian, and Buzzfeed). Data were analysed thematically using NVivo 12 software. Analysis explored commenters’ use of evidence sources, framing and narratives in comparison to the content of the news media being commented on. Findings Results suggest that although readers engage with article content and framings, they also use and share alternative evidence sources; and frame the problem of Zika virus disease, its causal factors, and appropriate solutions differently to journalists’ news articles. The presence and content of comments varies between publications, changing the public health messages different audiences receive. Interpretation Readers of online news articles who also read comment sections are likely to engage with alternative ideas about disease genesis, risk, and appropriate mitigating actions. This behaviour might expose readers to risk even in the face of responsible journalism. This result is further complicated in the case of emerging threats in which scientific uncertainty is highlighted. Solutions to address potentially damaging user comments, through resource-intensive active moderation or comprehensive restriction of user comments, is part of a wider challenge facing online platforms and requires additional research and debate. A strength of this study is its in-depth manual analysis; a potential weakness is the small sample size of articles. Funding AN, CP, and SH were funded by the Informing Healthy Public Policy programme (MC_UU_12017-15 and SPHSU15) of the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow. The funding bodies had no role in the design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of this study.