Misinformation As Genre Function: Insights on the Infodemic from a Genre-Theoretical Perspective

References

• Anderau, G. (2023). Fake news and epistemic flooding. Synthese, 202(4), 106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04336-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, T. (2021). The vaccine scientist spreading vaccine misinformation. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/
   Google Scholar
• Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Belcher, D. D. (2023). Digital genres: What they are, what they do, and why we need to better understand them. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitzer, L. F. (1964). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236733
   Google Scholar
• Blakeslee, S. (2004). The CRAAP Test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3), Article 4. https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol31/iss3/4
   Google Scholar
• Bojsen-Møller, M., Auken, S., Devitt, A. J., & Christensen, T. K. (2020). Illicit genres: The case of threatening communications. Sakprosa, 12(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.5617/sakprosa.7416
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, T., & Zhao, J. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLOS ONE, 15(10), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buehl, J. (2014). Toward an ethical rhetoric of the digital scientific image: Learning from the era when science met photoshop. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(3), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2014.914783
   Google Scholar
• Cassam, Q. (2019). Conspiracy theories. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caulfield, M., & Wineburg, S. (2023). Verified: How to think straight, get duped less, and make better decisions about what to believe online. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. K., & Bojsen-Møller, M. (2019). Sproglige virkemidler i indirekte trusler [Linguistic techniques in indirect threats]. In Y. Goldshtein, I. S. Hansen, & T. T. Hougaard (Eds.), Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog 17 (pp. 207–226). Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Canadian Academies. (2023). Fault Lines. Expert Panel on the Socioeconomic Impacts of Science and Health Misinformation, CCA.
   Google Scholar
• COVID19MISINFO. (n.d., 4 Nov 2022). A Simplified Fact-checking Rating System. COVID19MISINFO.ORG. https://covid19misinfo.org/a-simplified-fact-checking-rating-system/
   Google Scholar
• Devitt, A. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 336–255). University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doody, S., & Artemeva, N. (2022). “Everything is in the lab book”: Multimodal writing, activity, and genre analysis of symbolic mediation in medical Physics. Written Communication, 39(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211051634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahnestock, F. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088386003003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahnestock, F. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fallis, D. (2015). What is disinformation? Library Trends, 63(3), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2015.0014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43–66). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Freadman, A. (2002). Uptake. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 39–53). Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freadman, A. (2020). A tardy uptake. Discourse and Writing/rédactologie, 30, 105–132. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.781
   Google Scholar
• Gangal, A. (2022). Fact check: Can Covid vaccines cause Stevens Johnson Syndrome? The Healthy Indian Project. https://www.thip.media/health-news-fact-check/fact-check-2/35934/
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S. (2020). Where’s the rhetoric? Imagining a unified field. Ohio State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S. (2021). Misinformation inoculation and literacy support tweetorials on COVID-19. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920958505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• healthfeedback.org. (n.d.). Health Feedback. https://healthfeedback.org/
   Google Scholar
• Horbyk, R., Löfgren, I., Prymachenko, Y., & Soriano, C. (2021). Fake news as meta-mimesis: Imitative genres and storytelling in the Philippines, Brazil, Russia and Ukraine. Popular Inquiry, 1(8), 30–54. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-2021112410434
   Google Scholar
• @katyperrytv. [@katyperrytv]. (2022a, October 23). [ TikTok]. https://www.tiktok.com/@katyperrytv/video/7157762813413313798?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1
   Google Scholar
• @katyperrytv. [@katyperrytv]. (2022b, November 11). [TikTok]. https://www.tiktok.com/@katyperrytv/video/7164601114204065030?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1
   Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J. (2019). Bridging the gap between experts and publics. Ibérica, 37, 167–192. https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/114
   Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J. (2022). ‘Coronavirus explainers’ for public communication of science: Everything the public needs to know. In A. Musolff, R. Breeze, K. Kondo, & S. Vilar-Lluch (Eds.), Pandemic and Crisis Discourse: Communicating COVID-19 and Public Health Strategy, (pp. 97–114). Hampton Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350232730.ch-006
   Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J. (2023). Multimodal practices of research groups in twitter: An analysis of stance and engagement. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (Eds.). (2019). Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Luzón, M. J., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2022). Digital genres in academic knowledge production and communication: Perspectives and practices. Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Mandalios, J. (2013). RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science, 39(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513478889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019). Registered reports: Genre evolution and the research article. Written Communication, 36(1), 38–67.
   Google Scholar
• Mehlenbacher, B., and Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2024). Synthetic Genres: Expert Genres, Non-Specialist Audiences, and Misinformation in the Artificial Intelligence Age. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816231226249
   Google Scholar
• Mercieca, J. (2020). Demagogue for president: The rhetorical genius of Donald Trump. Texas A&M University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (1994). Rhetoricl community: The cultural basis of genre. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67–78). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2017). Where do genres come from? In C. R. Miller & A. R. Kelly (Eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments (pp. 1–34). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2018). Genre in Ancient and networked media. In M. Kennerly & D. S. Pfister (Eds.), Ancient Rhetorics and digital networks (pp. 176–205). University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2020). Exercising genres: A rejoinder to Anne Freadman. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 30, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.843
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2019). The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, K. [ @katyperry]. (2022, October 27). Welcoming all my #flatearthers #spaceisfakers #birdsarentrealers #skyisntbluers to come see my broken doll eye party trick IRL in Vegas next year! https://twitter.com/katyperry/status/1585709277305372673
   Google Scholar
• Pflugfelder, E. H. (2022). Evidence engines: Common rhetorical features of fraudulent academic articles. Written Communication, 39(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069332
   Google Scholar
• Power, S. (2022). Fact Check: Did Katy Perry have an eye ‘glitch’ due to Covid vaccine? Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/katy-perry-eye-concert-reddit-viral-1754501
   Google Scholar
• Puschmann, C. (2009). Lies at Wal-Mart. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 49–84). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Reuters Fact Check. (2022). Fact Check: Video of woman with Stevens-Johnson syndrome falsely linked to COVID-19 vaccines. Reuters, Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-sjs-vaccines/fact-check-video-of-woman-with-stevens-johnson-syndrome-falsely-linked-to-covid-19-vaccines-idUSL1N3161JL
   Google Scholar
• Secor, M., & Walsh, L. (2004). A rhetorical perspective on the Sokal Hoax: Genre, style, and context. Written Communication, 21(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303261037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teoh, F., (ED). (2022 Oct 24). Study by German researchers didn’t find significant safety concerns with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, contrary to claim by Alex Berenson. Health Feedback. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/study-german-researchers-no-significant-safety-concerns-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-alex-berenson/
   Google Scholar
• Thieme, K. (2022). A play on occlusion: Uptake of letters to the university President. Rhetoric Review, 41(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2022.2038510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorp, H. H. (2022, October 13). Remember, do no harm? Science, 378(6617), 231–231. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf3072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traberg, C. S., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Birds of a feather are persuaded together: Perceived source credibility mediates the effect of political bias on misinformation susceptibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, Article 111269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickman, C. (2013). Observing inscriptions at work: Visualization and text production in experimental physics research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.755911
   Google Scholar
• Xia, S. (2023). Explaining science to the non-specialist online audience: A multimodal genre analysis of TED talk videos. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, J. C. (2021). Disinformation as the weaponization of cruel optimism: A critical intervention in misinformation studies. Emotion, Space and Society, 38, 100757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, D. G., & Bleakley, A. (2020, June). Ideological health spirals: An integrated political and health communication approach to COVID interventions. International Journal of Communication, 14, 3508–3524. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15309
   Google Scholar
• Young, D. G., Maloney, E. K., Bleakley, A., & Langbaum, J. (2022). “I feel it in my gut:” Epistemic motivations, political beliefs, and misperceptions of COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2), 643. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7823
   PubMedGoogle Scholar