TY - JOUR
T1 - Public Reason in Times of Corona
T2 - Countering Disinformation in the Netherlands
AU - Buijsen, Martin
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2025.
PY - 2025/1/27
Y1 - 2025/1/27
N2 - Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.
AB - Who should decide what passes for disinformation in a liberal democracy? During the COVID-19 pandemic, a committee set up by the Dutch Ministry of Health was actively blocking disinformation. The committee comprised civil servants, communication experts, public health experts, and representatives of commercial online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. To a large extent, vaccine hesitancy was attributed to disinformation, defined as misinformation (or data misinterpreted) with harmful intent. In this study, the question is answered by reflecting on what is needed for us to honor public reason: reasonableness, the willingness to engage in public discourse properly, and trust in the institutions of liberal democracy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85216811008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0963180125000027
DO - 10.1017/S0963180125000027
M3 - Article
C2 - 39865838
AN - SCOPUS:85216811008
SN - 0963-1801
JO - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
JF - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
ER -
