Conference Agenda

Purpose: This paper examines strategies used by competing actors when attempting to weaken the trustworthiness of others as a form of strategic communication. Concretely it examines such strategies as found in 20 articles from two Norwegian alternative news-pages during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method: The paper employs a qualitative thematic coding approach to textual analysis. It develops categories for coding based on established strategies for strengthening trustworthiness through communication, examining the reversal of such strategies by actors attempting to weaken it.

Findings: Being a work in progress, it is premature to speculate about what the project may find, but we aim to discover some reoccurring strategies used by actors wanting to negatively impact the trustworthiness of authorities. We expect that some of these strategies will reflect existing strategies for strengthening trustworthiness through communication, while other may be more novel and unique to this form of active attacks on credibility. It will be particularly useful to determine what role the proven track-record and history of an organization serves, as a reference point for strategies for weakening trustworthiness.

Impact: Increasing our knowledge of strategies used by actors wishing to weaken the trustworthiness of authorities can prove essential in developing research-backed strategies for countering such attacks. Deepening our understanding of the interactive co-construction of trustworthiness can also contribute to a better understanding of how trust in itself can be impacted through communication.

During a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, the public health authorities will typically be criticized for their efforts. When such criticism comes from the ranks of medical personnel, the challenge becomes more pronounced for the authorities as it suggests a public negotiation of who has the sufficient expertise to handle the pandemic. Hence, the authorities are faced with the challenge of defending their competence and advice, while at the same time adhering to a bureaucratic/scientific ethos that imposes communicative boundaries. This explorative study analyzes the rhetorical response strategies used by the Norwegian public health authorities in this regard. A finding is that the authorities’ responses were distributed along a defensive–accommodative continuum: the authorities a) stated that the critics were wrong, b) claimed to possess the best available knowledge, c) pointed to the need for situational adaption (proportionality), or d) gave concessions, saying changes were under way.

Purpose: Since the COVID-19 pandemic has put the spotlight on national governments as (ir)responsible actors, it is valuable to investigate how national authorities handled the challenges brought by this new normality. The dark side of online activism was such a challenge for national governments since multiple voices with competing interests were present in the online environment. Therefore, this study assesses how the Romanian government acted as a hijacker of the #Nuvreau/#Idonotwantto hashtag launched by the COVID-19 anti-vaccine advocates.

Design/methodology/approach: Adopting an issue arena approach and employing a network analysis and a framing analysis, this study explores the interconnectivity and the topics in the #Nuvreau/#Idonotwantto network present in 3,214 Facebook posts. Frames and frame alignment instances are also analysed in the communication network.

Preliminary findings: The findings suggest a narrative shift from an online movement against COVID-19 vaccination to a manifest against COVID-19 virus. The Romanian national authority was among the most active stakeholder in the communication network. The preliminary results showed that diaspora along with citizens and political actors were among the most active stakeholders.

Contribution for strategic communication theory and practice: This study contributes (1) to the literature on arenas as communication networks and (2) to the understanding of hashtag hijacking as a governmental social responsibility action when the arena includes various voices presenting counter-discourses on COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.