Super-Spreaders or Victims of Circumstance? Childhood in Canadian Media Reporting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Critical Content Analysis

This qualitative research study, a critical content analysis, explores Canadian media reporting of childhood in Canada during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Popular media plays an important role in representing and perpetuating the dominant social discourse in highly literate societies. In Canadian media, the effects of the pandemic on children and adolescents’ health and wellbeing are overshadowed by discussions of the potential risk they pose to adults. The results of this empirical research highlight how young people in Canada have been uniquely impacted by the COVID-19 global pandemic. Two dominant narratives emerged from the data: children were presented “as a risk” to vulnerable persons and older adults and “at risk” of adverse health outcomes from contracting COVID-19 and from pandemic lockdown restrictions. This reflects how childhood was constructed in Canadian society during the pandemic, particularly how children’s experiences are described in relation to adults. Throughout the pandemic, media reports emphasized the role of young people’s compliance with public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and save the lives of older persons.

A Classification Framework for Analyzing the War and Peacemaking Potential of News Media in Pakistan

In this study, we present a contextual model for analyzing the escalatory and de-escalatory trends in media reporting of seven conflicts in Pakistan. For this purpose, we combined findings from both survey and content analysis. While the survey helped to examine the journalists’ perceptions about the security threats of conflicts and the factors that influence the reportage, the content analysis was utilized to analyze the escalatory and de-escalatory characteristics in the coverage. The findings show that high security conflicts lead to a patriotic reporting scenario that results in high escalatory coverage. There is a significant decrease in the escalatory coverage as the assumed threat level of a conflict decreases. Similarly, we found that a conflict in which journalists exercised more relative freedom from pressure groups was reported in de-escalatory fashion. These findings can be useful for strategizing for the implementation of peace journalism in Pakistan in particular and elsewhere in general.

Mediations of Security, Race, and Violence in the Pulse Nightclub Shooting

This article examines news and political mediations of security, race, and violence in the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting in an attempt to isolate how dominant institutions reaffirm and preserve the North American state's monopoly on violence and cultural preservation through the calculated balance of security in relation to tolerance of diversity. The event was predominantly mediated through security discourses of the “war on terror,” and this martial framing enabled the production of homonationalist rhetoric (drawing on Jasbir Puar's Terrorist Assemblages) that aimed to include previously excluded queer Latino/a populations within the American body politic. Focusing on news media reporting and political as well as activist responses to the shooting during the months of June–August 2016, the article shows how this process of homonationalist inclusion was not smooth. Memorialization and advocacy for the Pulse victims by dominant institutions is striated by colliding phobias (Islamo-, xeno-, and homo-) that interrupt a clear mode of nationalist address or point of identification in mediations of the shooting. Drawing on a knowledge base attentive to queer-of-color and Indigenous concerns, the article demonstrates how biopolitical and necropolitical value is extracted from communities exposed to intersecting violences with differential dividends distributed to queer Latino/a and Afro-Latino/a communities.

The Belt and Road Initiative in Australian mainstream media: Why did its narratives shift from 2013 to 2021?

Compared with similar research mainly focusing on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Australian mainstream media using discourse analysis, this paper explores the reasons for the narrative shift by conducting semi-structured interviews with leading and well-known Australian narrative producers. This paper takes two conditions as a given. Firstly, the BRI narratives in Australian mainstream media shifted in tone from mostly positive to highly critical. Secondly, the Australian mainstream media's increasingly negative attitudes towards the BRI are essentially not just about the BRI but the Chinese government. Based on my analysis and interviews, this paper makes contributions by filling in the gap of finding out reasons to explain this narrative shift. More concretely, this paper finds out that while mainstream media is influential in many areas of national policy making, mainstream media reporting on foreign affairs is less so. By comparison, the Australian government's BRI or China policy has a significant impact on Australian mainstream media reporting. This narrative shift has been driven by international politics and Australia's China policy, influenced by Australian audiences’ preference of local news and their local position, and its democratic responsibilities. Meanwhile, the vagueness and constant changing characteristics of the BRI do not help the understanding of the BRI in Australian media.

Patient-focused pathogen genetic counselling—has the time come?

Ensuring accordance with principles of healthcare ethics requires improved communication of pathogen genomic data. This could include educating healthcare professionals in communicating pathogen genomic information to individuals, developing ethical frameworks for reporting pathogen genomic results to individuals, responsible media reporting guidelines, and counselling for individuals (‘pathogen genetic counselling’).

International comparisons of COVID-19 case and mortality data and the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions: a plea for reconsideration

International comparisons of the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) based on national case and mortality data are fraught with underestimated complexity. This article calls for stronger attention to just how extensive is the multifactorial nature of national case and mortality data, and argues that, unless a globally consistent benchmark of measurement can be devised, such comparisons are facile, if not misleading. This can lead to policy decisions and public support for the adoption of potentially harmful NPIs that are ineffective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic and damaging to mental health, social cohesion, human rights and economic development. The unscientific use of international comparisons of case and mortality data in public discourse, media reporting and policymaking on NPI effectiveness should be subject to greater scrutiny.