1) How does public policy impact information technology?
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
IT in global economy
Just from $13/Page
Describe at least two examples of:
a) a public policy that had a positive impact on IT, and
Describe at least two examples of:
b) a public policy that had a negative impact on IT
2) How technology has had an impact on public policy
Describe at least two examples
No PlagiarismAPA Formaturgent
Annenberg Public Policy Center: Vaccine
Misinformation and Social Media
Publication info: Targeted News Service ; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]18 Feb 2020.
ProQuest document link
FULL TEXT
The Annenberg Public Policy Center issued the following news release:
People who rely on social media for information were more likely to be misinformed about vaccines than those
who rely on traditional media, according to a study of vaccine knowledge and media use by researchers at the
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
The study, based on nationally representative surveys of nearly 2,500 U.S. adults, found that up to 20% of
respondents were at least somewhat misinformed about vaccines. Such a high level of misinformation is
“worrying” because misinformation undermines vaccination rates, and high vaccination rates are required to
maintain community immunity, the researchers said.
The study of vaccine misinformation, published in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, was
conducted in the spring and fall of 2019, when the United States experienced its largest measles outbreak in a
quarter century. Between the two survey periods, 19% of the respondents’ levels of vaccine misinformation
changed in a substantive way – and within that group, almost two-thirds (64%) were more misinformed in the fall
than in the spring.
Media consumption patterns helped to explain the change in misinformation levels, the researchers found. Those
respondents who reported increased exposure to information about measles and the MMR (measles, mumps, and
rubella) vaccine on social media were more likely to grow more misinformed about vaccines. By contrast, those
people who reported an increased exposure to news accounts about those topics in traditional media were more
likely to grow less misinformed about vaccines.
“People who received their information from traditional media were less likely to endorse common anti-vaccination
claims,” said lead author Dominik Stecula, a postdoctoral fellow in the science of science communication program
at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). He co-authored the study with Ozan Kuru, another APPC
postdoctoral fellow, and APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
The result is consistent with research suggesting that social media contain a fair amount of misinformation about
vaccination while traditional media are more likely to reflect the scientific consensus on its benefits and safety,
according to the Annenberg researchers.
‘Worrying’ levels of vaccine misinformation
The researchers found that:
* 18% of respondents mistakenly say that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that vaccines cause autism;
* 15% mistakenly agree that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that vaccines are full of toxins;
* 20% wrongly report that it is very or somewhat accurate to state that it makes no difference whether parents
choose to delay or spread out vaccines instead of relying on the official vaccine schedule from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and
* 19% incorrectly say it is very or somewhat accurate to state that it is better to develop immunity by getting the
disease than by vaccination.
Medical experts and media consumption
The researchers also found that an individual’s level of trust in medical experts affects the likelihood that a
https://proxy.cecybrary.com/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/23565
47880?accountid=144789
https://proxy.cecybrary.com/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2356547880?accountid=144789
person’s beliefs about vaccination will change. Low levels of trust in medical experts coincide with believing
vaccine misinformation, the researchers said.
In addition, the research found that vaccine misinformation proved resilient over time. Most of those in the sample
(81%) were just as informed or misinformed in the spring (February/March) as they were five months later
(September/October), despite the extensive news coverage of the measles outbreak and attempts by the CDC to
educate the public. Among the 19% whose level of knowledge changed substantially, 64% were more misinformed
and 36% were better informed.
The researchers point out that although the findings only show correlations between media coverage and
individual attitudes – not causation – these findings still hold implications for the effectiveness of national pro-
vaccination campaigns, the role of health professionals in addressing misinformation, and the impact of social
media misinformation.
The findings, Kuru noted, come as a number of states have been debating whether to tighten their laws
surrounding vaccination exemptions and social media companies have been wrestling with how to respond to
different forms of misinformation.
The researchers said this study suggests that “increasing the sheer amount of pro-vaccination content in media of
all types may be of value over the longer term.” They said the findings also underscore the importance of decisions
by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Pinterest to reduce or block access to anti-vaccine misinformation.
“How Trust in Experts and Media Use Affect Acceptance of Common Anti-Vaccination Claims,” was published in
the inaugural issue of the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review in January 2020.
[Category: Political]
MSTRUCK-7023432 MSTRUCK
DETAILS
Subject: Measles; Social networks; Researchers; Vaccines; False information; Public policy
Location: United States–US
Company / organization: Name: Annenberg Public Policy Center; NAICS: 813319; Name: University of
Pennsylvania; NAICS: 611310; Name: Centers for Disease Control &Prevention–CDC;
NAICS: 923120; Name: Cold Brew Labs Inc; NAICS: 518210
Publication title: Targeted News Service; Washington, D.C.
Publication year: 2020
Publication date: Feb 18, 2020
Publisher: Targeted News Service
Place of publication: Washington, D.C.
Country of publication: United States, Washington, D.C.
Publication subject: Public Administration
Source type: Newspapers
Database copyright 2020 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 2356547880
Document URL: https://proxy.cecybrary.com/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/23565
47880?accountid=144789
Copyright: Targeted News Service
Last updated: 2020-02-18
Database: ProQuest Central
https://proxy.cecybrary.com/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2356547880?accountid=144789
https://proxy.cecybrary.com/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2356547880?accountid=144789
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact
- Annenberg Public Policy Center: Vaccine Misinformation and Social Media
