How Russia and China attempt to influence US vaccine conversations
Authors: Kyle Weiss (Graphika), Toni Friedman, Zoe Huczok, Lindsay Hundley (Stanford Internet Observatory)
Since the Virality Project began tracking COVID-19 vaccine disinformation online, we have observed numerous instances of foreign state-backed actors seeking to influence conversations in the US related to COVID-19 vaccines through state media, and representatives. While the vast majority of vaccine- related activity detected by the Virality Project has been a product of domestic actors attempting to shape narratives within the polarized US information environment, foreign state actors are also active in the conversation around vaccines. Our analysis, which primarily focuses on accounts affiliated with the governments of Russia and China, shows state-backed actors using two main tactics to achieve these goals:
Selectively promoting content to shape the vaccine debate
Injecting new content or perspectives into existing vaccine conversations
Selectively promoting content to shape vaccine debate
Russian, and Chinese state media opportunistically report on events that raise doubts about the safety or efficacy of Western vaccines. This coverage is often fact-based, maintains the appearance of journalistic neutrality, and sometimes centers on existing coverage circulating in U.S. conversations. However, by choosing to amplify particular cases where the vaccines appear ineffective or where individuals experienced rare side effects, state media outlets can make readers more hesitant about vaccines. Of course, all media outlets can shape public opinion when choosing topics to report on; however, research shows that governments that exert influence over the media use this tactic for their own political ends.
Selective promotion of content to shape conversation is a common tactic noted both during the Virality Project’s monitoring and within the wider media manipulation space. However, because Russia and China are simultaneously seeking to promote their own vaccines to the world, they frequently pair this selective negative coverage of Western vaccines with positive promotion of their own vaccines.
Russia
Russian state media reports frequently on new (not yet peer-reviewed) studies that suggest Western vaccines are ineffective, unsafe due to issues with individual batches of vaccines, and cases where a person or handful of people suffered medical complications after receiving vaccines. The headlines on these articles, while factually correct, may be misleading due to lack of context. For instance, RT reported that Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch contracted COVID-19 after he had been vaccinated under the headline “Massachusetts congressman tests positive for COVID-19 after getting 2 shots of Pfizer vaccine.” The article itself noted that the Pfizer vaccine takes time to become effective and that no vaccines offer full protection against the virus. However, the article’s title leads the reader to the spurious conclusion that the vaccine was ineffective in this instance.
China
Chinese state media also regularly report on government investigations and responses to safety concerns with Western vaccines. In June, Chinese state media outlet CGTN, reported that health authorities in the US were inspecting the link between mRNA vaccines and the appearance of myocarditis in teenage boys. Conversely, in the two days following the release of a new study that showed that Sinovac, a Chinese vaccine, appears to be safe and effective for adolescents, state outlets shared at least 10 posts about the news on Facebook alone. Chinese state media outlets do share positive news about Western vaccines, but according to research from Alliance For Securing Democracy, the vast majority of negative coverage is directed at Western vaccines, specifically Pfizer which accounted for 65% of the negative coverage measured. No instances of negative coverage targeting Sinovac or Sinopharm were noted.
Russian state media often discredits public health institutions, particularly by alleging collusion between these institutions and private business interests. Russian state media outlets have also hosted content featuring individuals which American outlets have chosen to deplatform, offering them an opportunity to spread misinformation while alleging censorship by the mainstream US media. For example, in February 2021, RT interviewed anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During the interview, Kennedy accused the CDC of colluding with vaccine manufacturers, even stating that “the CDC is actually a vaccine company.” More recently, on July 6, RT livestreamed the Wayne Dupree show entitled “Warning! Countries are Pressuring Anti-Vaxxers to Get Vaccine!” On June 26, RT published an op-ed by Czech journalist Bradley Blankenship, arguing that the risks of mRNA vaccines were significantly downplayed in global media because the companies manufacturing them are for-profit. The article alleges collusion with U.S. business elites, claiming: “there’s simply too much at stake for the US and its ultra-wealthy ruling class to make a fuss about these particular vaccines.”
In another case with a more covert angle, a network of fake Russian accounts posted on far-right forum patriots[.]win, and alternative platforms Gab and Parler. The accounts posted on a variety of topics including vaccine skepticism. They promoted narratives suggesting the Biden administration is forcibly vaccinating communities, and that Microsoft (referenced on the vaccine label) is behind the US vaccine agenda.
The distinction between selectively promoting content and injecting new content into existing conversations can be blurry and state actors sometimes utilize both tactics simultaneously. For example, during the Johnson & Johnson vaccine pause in April, Ruptly and TASS both shared reports about the suspensions, noting that specialists were reviewing the possible connection to a rare form of blood clots. While these articles did draw attention to the unlikely risk of blood clots associated with the vaccine, they were accurate portrayals of the pause. However, RT then injected a new perspective into the conversation, publishing an article highlighting that there had been no reported cases of blood clots following use of the Sputnik V vaccine. Similarly, as conversations on the Delta variant increased at the end of June, a tweet from the account for the Russian-developed COVID-19 vaccine Sputnik V claimed Sputnik V had “90% efficacy” against the delta variant, and “smaller decline in efficacy against Delta than any other vaccine.”
China
China also tends to inject new perspectives that align with its foreign policy goals, particularly those that denigrate Western vaccines and the institutions that verify their efficacy. They do this through strategic framing, opinion pieces that introduce a specific angle, promoting statements by Chinese officials, and omitting information that does not fit a specific narrative. Global Times in particular has aggressively pushed content challenging the efficacy of Western vaccines.
This tactic was on display in June when Taiwan accepted two million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine from Japan and the US after reportedly turning down donations of Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines from China. In the subsequent weeks, there were several instances of Chinese state media outlets pushing a narrative that Taiwan and the US are politicizing vaccine distributions and denying Taiwanese people access to desired vaccines from China. After a delegation of US Senators visited Taiwan to announce vaccine donations, a CGTN Facebook post asked sarcastically “Is this an example of a ‘democratic’ government fighting the pandemic and saving people's lives and livelihoods?” Later, the Global Times tweeted that Taiwanese people were going to China to get vaccinated, and a People’s Daily post (in Chinese) reported that as a pro-unification Taiwanese man was dying of COVID-19 he said he wanted to go to China to get vaccinated.
There is frequently a high level of consistency across Chinese state media outlets in pushing a particular narrative. For instance, when a number of elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine in Norway, Norwegian health officials promptly clarified that many who died likely did so for non-vaccine related reasons, such as serious illnesses or extreme frailty. However, as the timeline below shows, Chinese media outlets pushed several articles using the story to undermine confidence in Pfizer. The same day Norwegian Health officials announced the news, the Global Times ran a story highlighting calls from Chinese health experts to suspend Pfizer vaccinations temporarily. A few days later, the Global Times ran another story featuring calls from Chinese health officials for the Australian government to “halt approval for Pfizer.” Due to the deaths, the Global Times article recommended that Australia “broaden its choices of COVID-19 vaccines, such as purchasing Chinese-produced inactivated vaccines.” Notably, US-based Children’s Health Defense picked up the first Global Times article. Although it shared its own coverage of the story, it maintained the frame that Chinese health experts had called for the suspension of the Pfizer vaccine.
Conclusion
Both Russia and China actively shape the conversation about COVID-19 vaccines online by selectively amplifying pre-existing content and injecting new stories and angles. Russia often promotes content that drives at social and political cleavages, in particular, promoting content that sparks outrage and challenges the trustworthiness of institutions. China, on the other hand, is more likely to create content that promotes itself, while at the same time, strategically highlighting negative content on Western vaccines or other countries’ vaccine distribution when it aligns with those goals. The Virality Project has tracked several instances where this content either gives a platform to anti-vaccine influencers, or where posts by Russian and Chinese state media circulate around anti-vaccine communities. These instances highlight how both content from Russia and China can inform or amplify anti-vaccination narratives in the US.