Active in Anti-Vaccine Facebook Groups: Interpretations of Mainstream COVID-19 Coverage Through the Hostile Media Lens

Abstract

Mass media plays a key role in helping audiences organize facts and make sense of uncertainty, particularly during emerging medical crises when pre-existing knowledge is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic was the first major global crisis in the modern communications era in which traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers and major news sites) and social media (especially Facebook groups) both functioned as high-reach information systems, shaping public interpretation in parallel. Social media, especially closed and semi-closed Facebook groups, became a central arena for discussion, community building, and the circulation of alternative interpretations. Against this backdrop, the current study examines how anti-vaccination activists (anti-vaxxers) who are active in anti-vaccine Facebook groups perceive mainstream media coverage of COVID-19. The study employs a qualitative design based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 70 anti-vaxxers of both genders who were active participants in anti-vaccination Facebook groups. Findings indicate that participants perceive mainstream media as advancing a biased, unidimensional narrative aligned with governmental, economic, and political interests, and as delegitimizing dissenting voices. Consistent with the hostile media effect, interviewees interpret coverage as hostile toward their community, which intensifies their tendency to avoid mainstream news and rely on Facebook group networks for validation, interpretation, and mobilization. These results highlight how crisis coverage is experienced by marginal groups and how social media group dynamics can reinforce perceptions of media hostility and deepen informational polarization.

1. Introduction

The current study focuses on anti-vaxxers’ perceptions of media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Opposition to vaccines is a universal phenomenon that has been studied extensively around the world. Despite scientific achievements in the field, vaccinations still evoke much controversy [1]. Previous studies have found evidence that the media coverage of anti-vaxxers tends to be negative. For example, coverage tends to deride and mock anti-vaxxers, and to blame them for the spread of the disease, the failure to prevent the pandemic, conspiracy spreaders and other outcomes [2,3].

We use the term “anti-vaccination activists” (or “anti-vaxxers”) as an umbrella label for individuals who opposed COVID-19 vaccination and related policies. Consistent with prior literature, we recognize heterogeneity in motivations and degrees of engagement [4].

The various media outlets are considered to be a mediators of information to the public at all times, and specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic [5,6]. One of the main sources of the public’s medical knowledge about vaccines is the various media, making the media a major factor in individuals’ vaccination decisions [7,8,9]. For example, during the swine flu outbreak in Mexico, the media played a significant role in disseminating information [10], responding to public fears and anxiety about the first vaccine and its risks [2]. Accordingly, when a new vaccine enters the market, media influence becomes even more critical, shaping vaccine acceptance by diverse public sectors [11].

A crisis is defined as a situation in which a society faces a threat to its physical existence, values, or norms. When decision makers are forced to make critical decisions under uncertainty and pressure [12], diverse sectors of the public express a strong demand for information. As a result, mass media play an important role in helping consumers create order in their facts and stories [13,14]. During a health crisis characterized by uncertainty and a lack of preparedness, “journalism in times of crisis” will typically feature an “inside-the-media” perspective, that is, a tendency to follow the dominant government message [12].

Recent research reflects the media’s central role in mediating information to diverse publics. During global health crises, media coverage tends to represent government narratives more prominently than those of marginalized groups, which often perceive the media as hostile [15,16]. This study investigates whether this pattern persisted during the first major global crisis of the modern communications era. During the pandemic, a wide range of media outlets, ranging from traditional media to social media, were active, and social media as a platform that fostered broad discussion and diversity of viewpoints. The study examines how anti-vaccination activists (anti-vaxxers) in anti-vaccine Facebook groups perceived traditional media coverage of COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, institutional news coverage (television, radio, newspapers and major news websites) operated in parallel with platform-based communication, especially large Facebook groups. Thus, audiences were exposed to continuous professional reporting alongside high-volume, peer-to-peer interpretation, mobilization, and contestation [5].

Israel offers an informative case for examining hostile media perceptions during COVID-19 due to its a rapid, centralized vaccination rollout. Israel was among the first countries to secure and distribute vaccines at scale (e.g., [17]), supported by universal statutory health coverage through health funds offering free, community-based vaccination. Yet the period was also marked by visible resistance, including protests over restrictions and the “Green Pass.” This opposition, together with Ministry of Health advocacy emphasizing vaccine safety and efficacy, made mainstream media coverage a central arena of conflict. The context is therefore well suited to examining how highly engaged anti-vaccination activists evaluate mainstream media, which is traditionally conceptualized as a ‘watchdog of democracy’ under crisis conditions. To address this question, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 70 anti-vaxxers active in the four largest anti-vaccine Hebrew-language Facebook groups in Israel (“Health Sense,” “Vaccine Victims,” “Model Common Sense,” and “Machatz,” The Courage to Talk about the Truth). Their responses were analyzed through the lens of communication crisis theories and hostile media perceptions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Vaccination Coverage in Traditional and Social Media

The existing body of research suggests that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by many cultural, political, societal, sociodemographic, and personal factors [18,19]. Collectively, these factors shape the vaccination decision-making process, making it difficult to pinpoint a definitive causal factor underlying vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, vaccine hesitancy ranges from active demand for vaccines to a sweeping refusal of all vaccines. Individuals characterized as vaccine hesitant do not uniformly reject all vaccines; rather, they engage in a selective decision-making process concerning each vaccine based on the information available to them. Within this group, new vaccines tend to evoke heightened levels of hesitation [19].

Mass media help consumers organize facts and stories [13,14] by collecting and conveying information. The media’s role increases in fields that are less accessible to the average person, including medicine and vaccinations. In those cases, most public knowledge is obtained from the media, which thus play a major role in shaping people’s vaccination decisions [7]. This role becomes even stronger when no pre-existing medical knowledge is available about new medical topics [20]. As a result, when a new vaccination is introduced, the media can potentially affect the speed and extent of public acceptance of the vaccination and the rate of a vaccination’s adoption [11].

The media serves as a primary determinant in vaccination behavior, as the nature of media discourse shapes how individuals conceptualize health threats. The framing of the disease, the volume of coverage, and the prevailing tone significantly modulate consumers’ risk perception. Consequently, these communicative factors directly influence individual choices concerning vaccine uptake or hesitancy [8,9].

The effect of media coverage of a new vaccination is a function of the timing of the coverage and the period elapsed since the vaccination’s first appearance. Specifically, coverage during the peak of a pandemic promotes vaccination [21]. However, in many cases, the media perpetuate and amplify a fear of vaccinations by extensively covering their side effects and intentionally triggering public apprehensions. This fear-inducing approach, inherent to certain media practices, significantly contributes to a decline in vaccination rates [19]. A prominent case in point is the MMR vaccine. In this case, the media’s focus on the risk of autism associated with the vaccine [22] caused a dramatic decline in the vaccination rate [23].

Studies show that in many cases, vaccine-related medical information in the media is superficial, with limited reliance on a true scientific basis [20], and suggest that the media should offer more precise information about vaccination, the disease, and reasons justifying vaccination [24].

During the Corona virus some media outlets in the USA, promoted more vaccine skepticism than others. For example, left-leaning outlets prioritized ‘watchdog’ functions by exposing governmental shortcomings, while simultaneously adopting a precautionary tone that underscored the severity of the health crisis, a trend less pronounced in right-wing media discourse [8]. At the same time, critiques of political failures were frequently juxtaposed with an institutional alignment and support for public health mandates. For instance, The New York Times played a pivotal role in endorsing COVID-19 vaccination and encouraging public uptake [9].

A similar pattern was observed in Israel, where mainstream media outlets primarily focused on critiquing the government without challenging the underlying public health directives. Instead, the media actively promoted and incentivized vaccination. In other words, the press refrained from presenting alternative narratives or questioning the necessity of the vaccine, thereby fostering a broad social consensus [3,25]. The primary framing strategies employed by news outlets to promote vaccine uptake emphasized the vaccine’s clinical benefits as the most effective countermeasure against the pandemic. This discourse was further reinforced by fear appeals pertaining to the disease’s effects and the promotion of collective responsibility. Here, non-vaccination was framed as a significant risk to public safety and communal health [3].

News outlet discourse utilized negative labeling in characterizing the unvaccinated population, adopting exclusionary descriptors such as “anti-vaxxers,” “conspiracy spreaders” and “COVID-deniers”. This rhetoric served to marginalize dissenting viewpoints by associating them with irrationality or social deviance, and reinforcing the normative boundaries of the public health consensus [3].

Previous studies found the main source of vaccine fear and hesitancy to be fake news and false information on social media [26]. One of the primary determinants of vaccine hesitancy regarding the COVID-19 vaccination was its rapid development. Paradoxically, mass media communication evidently played a role in fostering vaccination acceptance, as evidenced by the notable exposure to media coverage reported by the “willing to vaccinate” group in Australia [18].

Traditional media outlets generally advocate for vaccinations and generally present expert opinions. In contrast, social media platforms are characterized by a diverse array of voices from the public, who may not possess adequate information or accurate scientific understanding of the subject [27]. Because the internet is a space where voices can be expressed without restriction, it functions as a home for anti-vaxxers and their opinions, and apparently their voices are heard on this platform [28]. For example, anti-vaxxers’ voices are prominent on the Chinese social network WEIBO, where extensive debates are conducted between anti-vaxxers and vaccine supporters [29].

2.2. The Media During a Crisis

The term “fourth estate” is sometimes used to refer to mass media due to its significant power and influence over society. The term alludes to the media’s potential to serve as a counterbalance to the three traditional branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial [30,31]. The fourth estate acts as a check on power and ensures accountability in democratic societies, meaning that it plays a key role as the public’s watchdog over democratic powers and processes and as a gatekeeper’’ [30,32]. As the fourth estate, the media plays a crucial role in fostering free and open communication, where citizens engage in rational deliberation to shape public opinion and influence political decision-making [31]. The media’s democratic function lies in its ability to provide citizens with accurate and diverse information, supporting an informed citizenry capable of effective participation in democratic processes.

This role becomes even more pronounced during times of crisis or upheaval. During a crisis, there is a tendency to look for its causes and to identify individuals to whom blame can be attributed [33]. Crises create an insatiable public demand for information, and the media is important because it helps people create order out of facts and stories [13,14]. Moreover, because media coverage shapes the way the diverse sectors of the public understand and perceive the crisis and its implications, the media’s power lies not only in communicating facts to the public but in driving developments that are a function of the public’s perception of the crisis [13,33,34,35]. For example, studies have found that news coverage of proposed solutions to a crisis has a significant effect on public support for those solutions [36].

Two types of journalism affect the nature of crisis coverage and journalistic routines: an inside-the-media perspective, in which the crisis is characterized as a “surprise crisis,” marked by surprise, uncertainty, and journalists’ lack of preparedness. In such events, unprepared journalists tend to adopt the dominant government voice and as a result find it difficult to maintain their objectivity and balance [12]. This is evident from the prevalent use of official sources in crisis coverage [14]. In contrast, in an outside-the-media perspective, the crisis is described from the perspective of outside actors who convey stories that are clear and well known to journalists. In these cases, it is easier for journalists to maintain balanced reporting [12].

One of the main practices of news coverage is framing, which refers to journalists’ selective choice of topics and their decisions about which pieces of the larger picture will be presented to consumers and which will be left out [33,37]. A frame limits consumers’ range of potential interpretations of the events and orients them to “the most important” information [38]. Studies have identified several prevalent frames used in news coverage of crises: (a) human interest, which presents the human perspective. Because this frame appeals to consumers’ emotions, it generally is related to blame and accountability; (b) conflict, in which coverage highlights conflicts and disagreements between individuals; (c) morality, in which coverage stresses the moral context of the events; (d) economics, in which events are framed with reference to their economic effects on individuals, groups, organizations, or countries; (e) attribution of responsibility, in which the responsibility for the event is assigned to a government, an individual, or a group [33], where the tendency is to assign responsibility to government representatives [14,33]. The responsibility and economic frames are used prominently during a crisis, and news coverage during a crisis tends to ascribe blame to specific individuals or organizations or to focus on the economic effects of the crisis [33].

The traditional media typically frame crises using negative terms such as panic, fear and criticism of the government and marginalizing popular voices. While this practice is designed to attract consumers’ attention, it also affects media consumers’ anxiety levels [39,40]. By stressing risks and uncertainty, and by its selection of speakers, the media can elevate or lower the level of public panic, for example, by giving an extensive platform to experts who explain how to successfully prevent infection or who propose various solutions, in contrast to giving a platform to speculations, blame, and guilt [39].

Additional types of frames are used in health crises, including calls to action, new findings, security, and insecurity [34]. Studies indicate that government management of a health-related crisis in the media involves several factors, including the effectiveness of crisis prevention, the extent to which the media poses challenging questions, and the official bureaucracy [34]. The narratives that the media can use to cover a health crisis are relevant and affect consumers’ willingness to comply with the guidelines of health and government authorities [35].

During a crisis, consumers seek out social media because they offer more rapid, unfiltered information that does not necessarily appear in traditional media [14,40]. News blogs undermine the dominant influence of traditional media by exposing topics and angles that are unmentioned in traditional media. Studies have identified differences between reporting in blogs and traditional journalism during a crisis and found that journalists in traditional media tend more strongly than bloggers to rely on official sources during a crisis. Furthermore, while traditional journalists are committed to objectivity and balanced reporting, diverse sectors of the public have no expectation of balance or objectivity from bloggers [14]. Thus, groups tend to consume information on social media that matches and echoes their own worldview [41]. They consider social media information to be more credible, uncensored, unframed, and unfiltered [14,40,42].

In the social media era, the media no longer convey messages unilaterally. Instead, communications with media consumers are multi-lateral and interactive [40]. Consumers turn to social media primarily to find emotional support, according to studies on the motivations for social media consumption. Social media framing is derived from these motivations. Although the prevalent impression is that new media are more independent than traditional media [14], new media appear to be dependent on traditional media. That is to say, extensive coverage of a topic on social media will occur only when the topic is already being covered by traditional media, which indicates that social media mirror traditional media and do not function as a public sphere for voicing opinions [40].

Studies have found that social media respond more rapidly to crises than do traditional media, while traditional media use a wider range of sources [40], which are typically “elite” sources—government officials and scientists. In contrast, social media also give a platform to individuals who are not public figures although social media has also been found to give a prominent platform to experts [40].

2.3. COVID-19 on Social Media

Public attitudes toward the COVID-19 virus and social distancing are critical in preventing the spread of the virus. Social media usage rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic [43]. Numerous studies have concentrated on information flows in the media, with a particular emphasis on social media. Particularly during the period of social isolation, social media increasingly served as a primary platform for seeking information, communication, and entertainment. It also reflects society’s state and the challenges it faces [44]. Additionally, social media also serve as a potential space for offensive content, fake news, and conspiracy theories [43,45].

Because social media are constructed on algorithms that take into account users’ preferences, behaviors, and approaches, people ultimately consume and share information that aligns with their own worldviews, creating communities of like-minded people. Thus, the social network becomes an echo chamber where users hear their own opinions instead of being exposed to new and varied opinions.

Several studies found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter served as a platform for news and user updates, reflecting emotional responses. As an alternative to traditional media, Twitter often features political tweets opposing official government positions [46].

Other studies on communications during the pandemic focused on fake news disseminated online. Because anyone can post anything on social media, they have become an endless source of disinformation, influencing and misleading people’s opinions [47]. Because of the risk of promoting fake treatments, rumors, and conspiracy theories that spread panic, the World Health Organization defined the war against the infodemic of medical misinformation as its second most important goal [47].

The proliferation of misinformation via social media platforms during the pandemic significantly amplified the deleterious effects of fake news. These digital ecosystems facilitate the rapid dissemination of conspiracy theories, ranging from geopolitical claims, such as characterizing the virus as a Chinese-engineered biological weapon, to unsubstantiated medical advice, including the efficacy of lemon water or coconut oil. Furthermore, the algorithmic nature of social media promotes the off-label use of existing pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 prevention or treatment without clinical validation, thereby posing a substantial risk to public health and institutional trust.

Not surprisingly, research found that people around the world exhibit a high degree of trust toward information disseminated via social networks, leading to the internalization and behavioral adoption of such content. Notably, findings indicate that the primary motivation for sharing misinformation is altruism rather than entertainment gratification. In other words, users share such content from a perceived desire to assist others, rather than personal amusement [48].

Furthermore, age was identified as a significant factor in how individuals evaluate information consumed via social media. Specifically, younger cohorts (ages 16–29) demonstrated higher levels of critical appraisal and a more nuanced understanding of the inherent risks associated with misinformation [49].

Beyond algorithms that reinforced the echo chamber effect by amplifying user-consistent content, Facebook implemented a targeted policy against vaccine-related misinformation. The focus was on the suppression and de-prioritization of content deemed unreliable, thereby limiting its visibility on the platform’s ecosystem [50].

These interventions included the downranking of anti-vaccination pages, notwithstanding their higher engagement metrics compared to pro-vaccination content, and the rejection of advertisements containing anti-vaccine rhetoric. Consequently, this policy effectively reduced the probability of user exposure to such misinformation [51].

2.4. Hostile Media Perception

Recent studies show a consistent decline in public trust in the media, both in Israel and globally [5,52], due to growing politicization of public discourse on the media in Israel [52]. In the digital era, where anyone can publish information and cross the line from news consumer to news producer, journalism and traditional media have lost their exclusive legitimacy as sources of public information, further contributing to declining public trust [5,16]. The average consumer is exposed to an endless flow of content, which they process, analyze, and internalize through the prism of their own opinions, values, and ideologies; This process is amplified through the use of various algorithms that expose consumers to the same opinions and perceptions that they hold [41]. As a result, consumers sometimes consider traditional media to be biased and hostile. In the research literature this phenomenon is known as the hostile media perception, which refers to a situation in which individuals related to or involved in controversial issues such as vaccines, abortion, religious affiliation, veganism, and other issues feel alienated from traditional media which are believed to present a biased, unbalanced, and unfair picture of the issues [15,16].

It seems that the stronger an individual’s group affiliation and identity, the stronger their hostile media perception [53]. This may be related to the fact that social media are able to amplify the hostile media effect. Studies show that media consumers who follow politicians on social media develop a heightened hostile media perception, that is, a belief that the media are hostile to their own political views [42]. Politicians on social media utilize this platform to exacerbate hostile media perceptions in order to promote their own political interests [42].

Moreover, strongly identified political groups that perceive a specific medium to be unreliable and biased against their group’s political agenda will not read that medium’s coverage attentively and will describe it and the information it presents as unreliable and skewed. This is intended to protect the legitimacy of their own group identity [54,55]. In other words, the stronger an individual’s identity with their group, which is also reflected in following others who are related to one’s group (such as politicians) online, the greater the perceived difference between ingroup and outgroup individuals, and the greater their belief that the media are biased against their group and fail to accurately present its principles, ideas, and practices, as expected of professional media [41,42].

Schmitt et al. [56] enumerate three media information processing mechanisms that instill a hostile media perception in consumers: selective recall, which refers to individuals’ remembering specific parts of a media item, especially those that frightened or annoyed them; selective filtering, in which individuals consider neutral information in a media item as being biased in favor of “the other side”; and different standards, which refers to the perception of information favoring the other side as invalid, irrelevant, or false.

The literature review delves into the functioning of traditional communication channels in times of crisis, while highlighting a theoretical framework that elucidates the perception of biased communication by minority groups. Consequently, it presents an intriguing avenue of investigation to explore the perspective of the anti-vaccine minority regarding the role of traditional communication in the midst of a significant global crisis.

• Research question

RQ: How do anti-vaccination activists active in anti-vaccine Facebook groups perceive mainstream media coverage of COVID-19 and vaccination?

3. Methodology

This study employed a qualitative research design to examine how anti-vaccination activists who are active in anti-vaccine Facebook groups perceive mainstream media coverage of COVID-19. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews, which are well-suited to hostile media perception research because the phenomenon hinges on subjective interpretations of bias, intent, and fairness, which are best captured through participants’ own narratives. The interview format combined a shared set of theory-informed prompts with flexibility to probe examples and meanings that emerged during crisis-related sensemaking.

Israel provides a theoretically and empirically informative setting for examining hostile media perceptions during a public-health crisis. During the early phase of vaccine availability, Israel was among the first countries to secure and distribute COVID-19 vaccines at scale (e.g., [17]). Universal statutory health coverage through Israel’s health funds enabled an organized nationwide rollout (free vaccination via community-based clinics), and Israel’s relatively small geographic size and population (approximately nine million) facilitated coordinated logistics and consistent public messaging. At the same time, Israel experienced visible resistance to pandemic governance, including demonstrations and contentious debates regarding social-distancing restrictions, vaccination policy, and certification measures (the “Green Pass”). This combination of rapid rollout and organized opposition made mainstream media coverage a central arena of dispute and therefore a suitable case for the present research question. Additionally, because Israeli mainstream media traditionally functions as a “watchdog of democracy,” its prominent role in both scrutinizing government policy and conveying public-health information further reinforces the relevance of the Israeli case.

The study population included 70 self-identified anti-vaccination participants (60% women; 40% men) aged 22–60, predominantly residing in central and northern Israel. This is consistent with prior research which indicates that under 60 aged women tended to exhibit higher levels of vaccine hesitancy regarding the COVID-19 vaccine [57,58], while vaccine-opposing publics are heterogeneous in demographics, motivations, and degrees of engagement [4]. Eligibility criteria for participating in the present study were: (a) self-identification as an opponent of the COVID-19 vaccine and (b) active participation in anti-vaccine discussions on Facebook. To assess criterion (a), participants were asked a direct screening question at the beginning of the interview: “Do you identify yourself as an opponent of the COVID-19 vaccine?” “Active participation” was operationalized as frequent posting and/or commenting in relevant groups during the months preceding recruitment (rather than passive consumption only). Interviews were conducted in Hebrew.

Data collection took place during the inter-wave period between Israel’s third and fourth COVID-19 waves (March–June 2021). This period followed a large-scale vaccination campaign and coincided with intense public debate about the Green Pass and the return to normalcy, as well as heightened polarization and stigmatization of those who opted out of vaccination.

Participants were recruited via volunteer sampling from the four largest Hebrew-language anti-vaccine Facebook groups (“Health Sense,” “Vaccine Victims,” “Model Common Sense,” and “Machatz: The Courage to Talk about the Truth”). Membership in these groups required administrator approval following a join request. The groups were highly similar in their core ideology and goals (opposition to COVID-19 vaccination, lockdown policies, and the Green Pass) and were therefore treated primarily as recruitment sites rather than analytically distinct communities.

Potential participants were identified within the groups based on high engagement (e.g., frequent posters/commenters) and were contacted via direct private messages on Facebook. Approximately 70% of those contacted agreed to participate; the remaining individuals either declined or did not respond. Invitees were informed that the study examined perceptions of mainstream media (television, radio, newspapers, and major news sites) coverage of COVID-19 and vaccination. Recruitment proceeded iteratively alongside preliminary analysis, and we stopped recruiting once additional interviews became repetitive and no substantively new themes emerged (thematic saturation). Several additional interviews were conducted beyond that point to confirm the stability of the thematic map.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. All interviewees provided informed consent prior to participation. The invitation message explained the study’s academic aims, emphasized voluntary participation, and clarified anonymity and the right to discontinue at any time or skip questions without penalty. To develop rapport in an online setting, trained research assistants conducted a brief informal pre-interview conversation. Interviews lasted approximately 30 min and were conducted via Zoom. All interviews were recorded and transcribed by three research assistants under the author’s supervision. Pseudonyms were assigned and identifying details were removed from transcripts. The interview protocol was guided by the theoretical background and literature (media during crisis, COVID-19 discourse on social media, and hostile media perception). Participants were asked about their perceptions of mainstream media portrayal and coverage of the pandemic.

We used a hybrid (primarily inductive) thematic analysis. Initial coding and theme development were conducted bottom-up from the transcripts without a pre-specified codebook. Hostile media perception and crisis communication served as sensitizing concepts: they informed the interview guide and were used at a later interpretive stage to refine themes and connect findings to theory. The analytic procedure followed established thematic analysis guidelines [59,60] and incorporated cross-case comparison consistent with systematic text condensation. Coding and theme organization were conducted manually using standard document and spreadsheet tools to manage excerpts, codes, and thematic maps (no qualitative software was used).

To strengthen reliability, the author developed preliminary thematic maps and then refined them through comparison across cases. Three additional research assistants reviewed the coding structure and principal themes, and consensus was reached on the core thematic conclusions. The research team approached the groups as outsiders (i.e., not members of these communities). Throughout analysis, we maintained analytic distance by treating interview accounts as subjective perceptions and crisis-related sensemaking rather than as objective descriptions of events. Factual assertions raised in interviews (e.g., regarding epidemiological figures, vaccine harms, or coordinated media messaging) were not independently verified and are therefore reported as participants’ beliefs and interpreted in relation to hostile media perception and crisis communication.

4. Findings

Four themes emerged through a primarily inductive thematic analysis and were then interpreted through hostile media perception and crisis communication. Overall, participants’ accounts were highly affect-laden, marked by anger, frustration, moral outrage, distrust of mainstream media and public institutions, and frequent “betrayal” language with us-versus-them framing. Some also described anxiety and fear related to perceived coercion, crisis uncertainty, and stigmatization. We include quotations to illustrate interpretive frames and emotional tone (not to verify embedded factual claims) and use a limited set of representative excerpts to avoid redundancy.

4.1. Theme #1: Betrayal by the Media

Theme 1 captures a perceived moral breach: interviewees described mainstream news as intentionally deceptive and experienced this as betrayal by an institution that should provide accurate, pluralistic information.

Interviewees believe that the media’s presentation of a single narrative without investing effort to present a more comprehensive and nuanced picture of the situation can reinforce biases and perpetuate stereotypes, and advance specific agendas. They perceive this as a form of betrayal because they expect the media to serve as a reliable source of information that represents diverse viewpoints and fosters an informed public discourse. The interviewees feel betrayed by the media’s failure to fulfill its role as an objective source of information, as illustrated by Hadar (age 23): “For a year and a half they have been lying and discrediting anyone who thinks differently about COVID”

(Hadar, 23)

A second interviewee stated:

“They are doing everything to prevent us from hearing other voices…”

(Shir, 40)

The interviewees frequently employed an us vs. them discourse”, “emphasizing the sense of antagonism between themselves and others, and the underlying conflict that exists between the two groups on the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations.

Interviewees stressed that the narrative presented in the media is the narrative of the Ministry of Health and the government:

“The media go hand in hand with the Ministry of Health’s messages ….”

(Mike, 33)

A third interviewee stressed the one-dimensional narrative presented by traditional media:

“You won’t hear two opinions, there is only one opinion, one narrative: ‘The catastrophe is just around the corner and there are thousands who have died or are on a ventilator’… predictions that haven’t come true in a year and a half yet they continue to ram them down our throats …”

(Shay, 29)

Several interviewees mentioned that the one-dimensional narrative is expressed in scripted messages that the media keep reciting while silencing other voices:

“What the media do is to silence the voices of the scientists and physicians who do not follow the narrative of the media and the government, and they devote 98% of broadcasting time to physicians and scientists who reiterate the voice of the Ministry of Health…”

(Mike, 33)

Another interviewee stated:

“The silencing is unprecedented…. They are speaking in the voice of the Ministry of Health, but there are physicians and scientists who believe in science, who are not COVID deniers, and it’s time that their voice is heard….Why aren’t they in the studio sitting opposite [Dr.] Sharon Alroy Price “[head of Israel’s Health Services]?”

(Amit, 56)

Multiple interviewees shared the opinion that traditional media worldwide used a standardized “list of talking points. “They noted that news presenters and anchors across the globe use similar language, suggesting the presence of a growing global media campaign against anti-vaxxers. This campaign includes the use of terms such as “the anti-vaccination epidemic” and calls to impose sanctions and restrictions against anti-vaxxer individuals or groups, including mandatory vaccination.

Another interviewee summarized the situation as follows:

“There is no scientific discourse, no sharing, no dialogue, and no listening.”

(Simon, 44)

Interviewees complained of the media’s unprofessional conduct on two counts: First, “Television presenters are ignoramuses who simply repeat the things told to them by the Ministry of Health and they don’t do a serious investigation as required of them.”

(Mike, 33)

“The public deserves a genuine discussion. Invite experts from the entire spectrum to the studio for a discussion that will expose different opinions….”

(Lia, 30)

Second, interviewees claimed that the media adopted a policy to intentionally broadcast erroneous information, conceal the truth from the public and communicate incomplete information:

“They got rid of all the journalists who know how to perform a high quality investigation and not a slanted one…”

(Tal, 47)

One interviewee claimed:

“Media people don’t report the true figures to the public…For example, when the director Idan Zaira died, it was covered by the media, but he died as a result of cardiac arrest after his second vaccine…[this was] a ‘marginal’ piece of information that the media forgot to mention…”

(Sharon, 50)

She added:

“What we have is a distortion of the truth. The media decided to show the public only part of the information. They chose to publish very specific things, and it is possible that they were aware of negative things about this vaccine and chose not to publish them. For example, they didn’t talk about the prices that people have to pay or the side effects.”

(Sharon, 50)

Three additional interviewees reinforced this argument:

“They really distort the truth. On traditional media I don’t see any person who was hurt by the vaccine. I have friends who were injured by the vaccine, female friends who can’t stop bleeding, people who had a stroke and heart attacks at an age when they’re not normal phenomena, teenagers and people with neurological issues and no one talks about it.”

(Hadar, 23)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrations were held in Israel against the government and health officials. The protestors argued against social distancing restrictions, the government’s vaccination policy, and the COVID-19 certification that authorized entry into public places for the vaccinated (and left out the unvaccinated). Anti-vaxxers believe that the media refrain from broadcasting items about demonstrations of the anti-vaxxers in order to silence “other” narratives and to avoid showing that the demonstrators are powerful and are supported by a large public who believes in them. The media similarly avoid reporting on anti-vaccine demonstrations around the world, which, according to anti-vaxxers, are gaining momentum. To support their argument, several interviewees showed the interviewer videos that they had filmed at demonstrations, which they said were attended by thousands of individuals:

“The media don’t show these or any of the demonstrations in other countries….I wonder why?”

(Doron, 42)

The reasons offered by interviewees for the media’s “betrayal” and its presentation of a single narrative reveal two main themes: The media are being used by the government in order to maintain social order, and the media are being used to protect economic interests.

Another interviewee emphasized that one notable feature of the media’s practices during the COVID-19 pandemic was their tendency to evoke anxiety rather than provide a balanced and rational report of events:

“It’s a pity that the media are busy making everyone anxious and make less room for the many voices of reasons among us who are fearful of making themselves heard …”

(Mark, 32)

Another interviewee explained:

“When you use a slanted headline, it’s all one big ‘fake’… they lie all the time to scare us…”

(Asi, 49)

Interviewees stated that the media avoid presenting the voices of experts and virologists who don’t believe in vaccines and who have information that could persuade the diverse sectors of the public, and instead they choose to present biased experts, even if they are not experts in the field (for example, Prof. Barabash and Mr. Moshe Bar Siman Tov, both former General Directors of the Ministry of Health).

4.2. Theme #2: Mobilized Media by the State

Theme 2 reflects perceptions that mainstream media aligned with state institutions and failed to perform a critical watchdog role. We interpret these accounts as perceived institutional mobilization, a central driver of hostile media perception in crisis contexts.

One of the most important roles of the media is to serve as the “watchdogs of democracy” [61], by monitoring governmental institutions and questioning their actions. Many interviewees expressed criticism of the media, their failure to perform this role, and their reluctance to pose difficult questions to the government. According to the interviewees, the media were mobilized by the state, as expressed by Idan:

“The government appointed itself as the patron, and the media are mobilized, completely mobilized, and they’re not mobilized because it’s a state of emergency like a war.”

(Idan, 29)

Another interviewee added that the media align themselves with the government’s position:

“They stick to the government line. You know who makes the decisions, and whom the media serve. The media are really not as objective as they should be, in all fields, not only in this one. From what I see, the media receive their instructions in advance. It is clearly not an innocent player.”

(Sharon, 50).

Notably, several interviewees framed this distrust as not limited to COVID-19, portraying perceived media bias as a broader, ongoing feature of mainstream coverage.

An analysis of the interviews reveals a prevailing lack of confidence among the interviewees regarding the media’s capacity to effectively fulfill its public role as a source of objective information. Their lack of trust stems from their belief that the media is controlled by politicians, both during times of crisis and in ordinary circumstances.

Another interviewee asserted that the media’s failure to provide a platform for alternative perspectives can be attributed to its alignment with governmental interests.

“They don’t want to give a platform to criticism, yet they show the masses of people who received a vaccination, and lots of professors who urge everyone to get a vaccination…They don’t want us to hear this [our] side, only the side of the vaccine supporters, or they show [unvaccinated] people who were infected in order to scare us into getting vaccinated. They are collaborating with the government because of some kind of interest.”

(Lia, 30)

The majority of interviewees believe that the media’s alignment with the government may stem from the significant political upheavals that occurred in Israel and coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic:

“I think that there’s something [dictated] from above…some pressure on the media…someone is pulling the strings. They can’t show the side of whoever opposes vaccinations…there’s some kind of pressure… Even media people who didn’t get vaccinated cannot express their own opinion due to pressure from above…in all matters related to COVID-19, not only those related to the vaccine.”

(Simon, 44)

Another interviewee explains what she believed to be the reason for the pressure on the media:

“A lockdown is good for politicians because frightened people tend to put their faith in the supreme leader. I believe that that’s one of the driving forces and the media help them in this.”

(Lia, 30)

In summary, interviewees believe that political interests drive the media to align itself with government policy and that the media is mobilized to express the government’s narrative of the events.

4.3. Theme #3: Economic Interests

Theme 3 captures interviewees’ perceptions that mainstream COVID-19 coverage and pro-vaccination messaging were shaped by economic incentives rather than independent journalistic judgment. Participants attributed media alignment to financial interests. We interpret these accounts as participants’ explanatory frames and perceptions.

In addition to the participants’ view that biased coverage is a manifestation of journalistic unprofessionalism and a betrayal of the media’s fundamental duty, another key theme that emerges from the interviews is the notion that the media’s support for vaccination advocates and the government is primarily driven by economic considerations. The interviewees stated that the medical system is supported by the moguls who manufacture drugs and vaccines and therefore, pharmaceutical companies effectively control the industry and the media, and control the narrative communicated by the media.

One interviewee stated:

“I think that it happens because of an economic interest, [this desire to] get out of this situation whatever it takes, and ignore the facts and the other things that are less positive… ultimately, media coverage promoted an economic interest—to [ensure that] companies survive, to prevent crises from becoming overly complex, and to prevent obstacles that hinder the economic moves that are taking place in the economy.”

(Nadav, 55)

Another interviewee shared the idea that there are many powerful, influential individuals who control medical issues:

“There are more important people in the world who pull the strings in the economy, people with power and money and they also control a lot of money as well as the health system.”

(Idan, 29)

Other interviewees reiterated this belief:

“I think that the media are mobilized because they are managed by tycoons with a great deal of money, and this has implications for politics.”

(Tal, 47)

“The question we should ask is why media channels feel the need to market a medical product…What do they get out of it?”

(Doron, 42)

Another economic interest that emerged in the interviews is the media’s interest in creating drama to attract high ratings and advertisers. The commercial television channels generate profits on the basis of high ratings. Media organizations have economic interests and their desire is to expand their audience [62].

One interviewee stated:

“My opinion is that the media, irrespective of COVID-19, look for ratings and so, if there are elections or if there is a crisis, the media amplify everything … and clearly, if we have COVID-19 now, you’ll find amplification of COVID-19 in the media.”

(Lia, 30)

The interviewees referred to violence as a good reason for the media to cover an event, due to the high ratings that violent events attract:

“The media cover it only when there’s a physical altercation with the police. They’re all pathetic rating-mongers who will do anything to continue to spark [disputes related to] the pandemic, including by discrediting physicians and inciting people to turn against other citizens…”

(Shir, 40)

In summary, the interviews reveal the participants’ viewpoint that the media’s biased coverage, driven by mutual political and economic interests with the government, is perceived as unprofessional and a breach of journalistic duty. Furthermore, the media’s support for vaccination is believed to be influenced by economic considerations, including the pursuit of higher ratings.

4.4. Theme #4: Characterization of Anti-Vaxxers: Exclusion, Stigma, and Incitement

While interviewees shared opposition to COVID-19 vaccination, many emphasized diversity within this broader community and objected to being portrayed as a single, homogeneous category. This theme therefore focuses on perceived stigma and exclusion produced by homogenizing labels in mainstream coverage.

The interviews shed light on the interviewees’ sense of being marginalized in media representation, often labeled as “COVID-19 deniers.” The interviewees express a sense of exclusion from public and media discourse, and the belief that their opinions and beliefs are not given a platform. They assert that their position is not a denial of the existence of the disease or its symptoms, but rather opposition to the treatment and the portrayal of the virus as a grave illness. However, they feel that their arguments are being disregarded.

One interviewee described his feelings about social rifts and being a target of social exclusion:

“It’s also the whole idea of divisions: Anyone who thinks differently from me should be considered an outcast. I am not denying the virus; It has existed for many years in animals and humans, but it is a completely different story to say that there’s a pandemic, even if the disease is an unpleasant one… The most recent speech in the media was really shocking, frightening, and divisive, and it reminded me of very dark regimes, [something] that even Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) didn’t stoop to.”

(Nadav, 55)

Interviewees also stressed that the media present all anti-vaxxers as a single homogeneous group, without representing the diversity in this group.

Other interviewees added:

“They stigmatize people who don’t get vaccinated in order to deflect the ammunition from them, but they forget that all the people who are currently ill are not the people who are not vaccinated but actually the people who are vaccinated.”

(Hadar, 23)

The interviewees argue that the media’s approach fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations in perspectives among groups opposing vaccinations. The media’s coverage tends to highlight the extremist elements in the anti-vaccine movement, which may not accurately represent the views of all anti-vaxxers. Consequently, individuals who hold dissenting opinions on vaccinations feel hesitant to openly express their opinions for fear of being associated with extreme viewpoints or facing public backlash.

One interviewee expressed her reluctance to participate in television interviews due to a prevailing belief that individuals who view COVID-19 as a regular flu are automatically associated with conspiracy theories:

“If I go and talk to the media, they will say that I am a conspiracy supporter.”

(Asi, 49)

Other interviewees added that they are presented in the media in a ridiculous manner, for example when a respected professor who opposes vaccines appears in the media and is labeled a “COVID-19 denier” and his statements are made to appear incoherent. The interviewees feel that even when the media does interview anti-vaxxers, the latter are belittled and made to feel abnormal, as the following interviewee stated:

“The media let [Prof. Yoram Less who was the previous CEO of the Health Organization] speak but only to gain ratings and supposedly show that they support a diversity of opinions. It was unique to hear voices that were in opposition to the prevalent opinion. But it really wasn’t motivated by a genuine desire to hear what he has to say.”

(Amit, 56)

The interviewees stated that the popular position is presented in the media, while opposing opinions fail to receive an adequate platform. The television airtime they receive is significantly lower or non-existent compared to the time allotted to people who think like the media. Furthermore, when anti-vaxxers are finally heard, the presentation is disrespectful and encourages a sense of antipathy toward the speaker. As a result, many anti-vaxxers feel excluded from Israeli media.

Interviewees also stated that the media incite the public against anti-vaxxers by calling for restrictions to be imposed on unvaccinated individuals or by blaming them for the spread of the pandemic and a rise in mortality rates:

“Media people are increasingly inciting against a whole group of people who made a different choice of their own free will. Society should condemn people like Avri Gilad [well-known broadcaster, Author] and others who speak like that.”

(Shir, 40)

In summary, the interviewees strongly feel that the media oversimplifies the portrayal of anti-vaxxers by focusing on extremists and disregarding the diverse opinions within the movement. This approach is perceived as disrespectful and reflects the media’s animosity towards people who express dissenting views. Consequently, many anti-vaxxers believe they are excluded from the Israeli media discourse, unable to have their perspectives adequately represented or respected.

5. Discussion

This study examined how anti-vaccination activists (anti-vaxxers) who are active in anti-vaccine Facebook groups perceive mainstream media coverage of COVID-19. The media are considered to be mediators of information to the public, at all times and especially during a crisis [5]. The media serve as one of the primary sources for the public’s acquisition of medical knowledge about vaccinations. By making this information accessible to the public, the media play a key role in individuals’ vaccination decisions [7]. One of the main practices of media coverage is framing, which refers to journalists’ selective choice of topics; in other words, which parts of the larger picture will be presented to consumers and which will be excluded from their coverage [33,37]. Frames limit media consumers’ range of potential interpretations and orient consumers to “the most important information” [8,9,38]. The interviewees in the current study believe that this practice is exploited by the media, which are betraying their professional responsibility. According to the interviewees, the media’s lack of professionalism is reflected in their failure to conduct fact-checking before broadcasting information, their partial and biased coverage and reports, their presentation of a one-dimensional narrative and lack of efforts to present a more comprehensive and complex picture of the situation to the public at large. The opinions of the interviewees in the current study are consistent with the hostile media perception, in which consumers from distinct groups consider all traditional media reports and coverage of a specific topic as being unreliable and biased against their worldview [3,15,16].

Several interviewees framed their distrust in mainstream media as not limited to COVID-19 coverage, but as part of broader, longer-standing skepticism toward news institutions.

It should be noted that in the current study, prominent themes emerged among the vast majority of the interviewees. We assume that since the interviewees are active on similar Facebook groups in terms of their opinions and messages, an echo chamber effect is created, which causes the vast majority of followers to share the same opinions and echo them [46].

The interviews indicate that biased coverage is considered to be a mark of unprofessionalism and a betrayal of the media’s duty, motivated by political and economic interests that are shared by the media and the government. Through intimidation and amplification of a sense of crisis, and by focusing on the crisis at the expense of other important issues that are not on the public agenda, the media help the government to perpetuate the existing social order. The belief that the media’s economic interests align with those of the government also stems from the same fundamental lack of trust in the media. Studies conducted in other countries found that the media amplify the contents of their coverage through the use of “grandiose” language that generates anxiety [63,64]. The interviewees in the current study expressed their beliefs that the media overdramatized events during the pandemic as a result of their clear financial interest in attracting high ratings, and aligned themselves with the interests of the major corporations and advertisers that effectively finance the media’s operations. The interviewees’ beliefs can also be attributed to an underlying lack of trust in the media, which also extends to the allegations of shared economic interests of the media and the government that drive the media’s coverage of vaccination-related issues.

The various narratives that the media can use in their coverage of the current health crisis are relevant and influence consumers’ compliance with the instructions issued by the government and the Ministry of Health [35]. Vaccination is a topic that evokes a diversity of opinions and debates, and even experts and professionals do not concur on the implications of vaccinations and their effects on the crisis. Nonetheless, the interviewees in the current study believe that the media express a single narrative, which is the government’s narrative. The beliefs held by the interviewees align with the concept of a hostile media effect and reflect a broader lack of trust in the media. We may presume that the interviewees processed the information originating in the media through a selective recall of the parts of the coverage that annoyed them; selective filtering of neutral items as part of the counter-arguments; and different standards, through which they interpreted everything presented from the government’s perspective as a lie or propaganda rather than as fact [56].

The interviewees believe that they are being excluded from the public and media discourse and that their opinions and beliefs are not being heard. In the rare cases in which anti-vaxxers are covered by the media, their arguments are framed as extreme and the group itself is framed as homogenous, while they perceive themselves as heterogenic, which is in line with previous research [4]. That is to say, the media present all anti-vaxxers as a single group with identical features, without representing the diversity in this group. This finding is consistent with a previous study that found that when the media covers vaccination opponents, they tend to disparage and mock this group, and blame them for the spread of the disease, failure to prevent the pandemic, disseminating conspiracies and other outcomes [2,3].

Media coverage during the COVID-19 virus expectedly conforms to media features during a crisis, including mobilization around a government narrative. As a result, the hostile media effect may be exacerbated among anti-vaxxers due to these features.

The media’s selection of topics plays a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ social values, opinions, beliefs, and behaviors, as it disseminates information that can profoundly influence them [3,33,35]. One of the messages that the media routinely convey is the distinction between social groups. Media content frequently addresses issues using us-vs.-them rhetoric, such as the rich vs. the poor, the government vs. ordinary citizens, Democrats vs. Republicans, minority vs. majority, and observant Jews vs. secular Jews [65,66,67]. Moreover, media coverage also signals to consumers which group plays an important role in society, while the absence of another group from the media implies that it is inconsequential and relegated to the social margins [65,66,67]. In this way, the media functions as a conformism-promoting indicator of society’s expectations. For this reason, the interviewees in the current study believe that the media coverage of anti-vaxxers is designed to signal to society which ideas are appropriate and acceptable and which are not. As a result, the absence of coverage of anti-vaxxers (or their media presentation in a negative and stereotypical light) may also convey the message that opposition to vaccinations is a marginal phenomenon. This, together with the fact that this message is not backed by a discourse based on diverse voices, may exacerbate anti-vaxxer’s hostile media perception.

In conclusion, anti-vaccination activists who are active in anti-vaccine Facebook groups believe that mainstream media are betraying their obligation to society by covering the pandemic through the lens of a single narrative that preserves the existing social order, due to economic and political interests that permeate editorial considerations. In recent years, an increasing number of studies found evidence of a lack of trust in mass media [5,52], and the findings of the current study may offer an additional hypothesis to explain this trend. Specifically, due to the global pandemic, coverage of anti-vaxxers reflects the features of the media in crisis, including the tendency to emphasize the dominant voice of the government [12], while anti-vaccination activists in anti-vaccine Facebook groups refuse to accept media content at face value, and consider media content to be biased and selective. The interviews also suggest that participants expected mainstream media to be accurate and fully verified, while viewing social media as less reliable but acceptable as informal sources of information. Mainstream media were judged against a higher standard of accuracy and neutrality, so perceived mistakes were taken as evidence of broader deception than in information sources from the social media. This pattern may be reinforced by motivated reasoning, with greater effort invested in detecting flaws in mainstream reporting than in scrutinizing congenial social media claims, which may concur with the interviewees’ own opinions. To narrow this credibility gap, newsrooms and crisis communicators should strengthen transparent verification, make uncertainty explicit, and engage legitimate disagreement without creating a false balance, while avoiding stigmatizing frames and acknowledging diversity within dissenting publics. The findings suggest that participants evaluated crisis coverage not only by factual content but also by cues of fairness, voice, and accountability. Strengthening trust therefore requires transparent verification, clear communication of uncertainty, and non-stigmatizing engagement that acknowledges internal diversity among dissenting publics. These results also underscore the importance of independent, public service journalism with human editorial oversight that is insulated from political and commercial pressures, while engaging platforms without surrendering professional standards.

Future studies might validate the findings of the current study by analyzing the contents of anti-vaxxers on social media posts in order to examine them for a hostile media perception, and also analyze traditional media contents related to anti-vaxxers to examine the actual (rather than the perceived) nature of media coverage of vaccination opponents.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, participants were recruited via volunteer sampling from high-engagement anti-vaccine Facebook groups. This strategy likely over-represents highly committed activists and group-consistent narratives, which may intensify echo-chamber dynamics and limit transferability to less engaged or more ambivalent vaccine-hesitant publics. Second, Facebook’s recommender systems may have shaped participants’ information environments by preferentially exposing them to congruent content, potentially reinforcing anti-vaccine interpretations and negative perceptions of government and mainstream media. Third, the Israeli national context, characterized by an early, highly organized vaccination rollout alongside contentious “Green Pass” politics, may have influenced both media coverage and resistance in ways that differ from other countries, further constraining generalizability. Finally, our analysis does not adjudicate the factual accuracy of interviewees’ claims; consistent with hostile media perception, the study focuses on how participants construct and justify perceived bias, intent, and fairness in mainstream news coverage.