Defending and refuting information sources rhetorically: the case of COVID-19 vaccination

Abstract

This investigation compares how COVID-19 vaccination supporters and refusers make use of rhetorical strategies to judge the credibility of information sources in online discussion. To this end, the Aristotelian tripartite approach to rhetoric, that is, ethos, pathos and logos was utilized. The empirical findings draw on the analysis of 2257 posts submitted to Suomi24—a Finnish online discussion in May—October 2021. The findings indicate that both vaccine supporters and vaccine refusers mainly drew on the pathos- and ethos-related rhetorical strategies such as appeal to blameworthiness and ad hominem arguments while judging the credibility of information sources. Coronavirus vaccination appeared to be a highly contested topic giving rise to polarized debates, deep mistrust and mutual accusations between opposing parties. The rhetorical strategies were used to attack opponents’ views on the credibility of information sources, rather than making attempts to create mutual understanding of their value for arguments used in online discussion.