“The impacts are not evenly distributed”: Representation and inclusion of marginalized groups in authorities’ COVID-19 communication

Marginalized people as included and protected by the government

Much of the communication by authorities in both the UK and the U.S. represented marginalized groups as particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and highlighted the importance of protecting these groups through the efforts of the government and other citizens. In these contexts, marginalized groups were typically given little agency as social actors, and the focus was instead on the actions attributed to the authorities themselves:

Example 1:

The Government is committed to addressing the longer-term implications of COVID-19 for communities that have been disproportionately impacted, some of which were already disadvantaged before the pandemic. The Government is drawing on the knowledge and expertise of medical professionals and the best available evidence to develop and test new approaches to control the spread of the virus in order to protect affected individuals, communities and the NHS. (UK/Guidance and regulation during COVID-19, February 2021)

In Example 1, which comes from a document titled “Spring 2021 COVID response,” the UK authorities acknowledge that the pandemic has affected certain minorities disproportionately. The active party here is the government – they are engaging in actions like committing, protecting, controlling and developing. The positive self-representation of the authorities is further legitimated with science-based arguments (“knowledge and expertise of medical professionals,” “best available evidence”). Here, marginalized communities are mainly depicted as passive recipients of government actions (Course et al., 2024: 8). However, there were also examples in the data where more agency was attributed to the marginalized groups:

Example 2:

The issue of ensuring that women play a role not only, as you rightly say, in the decision-making, but that we are also keeping a clear and focused eye on the acute impact of the pandemic and all of the shadow pandemics – economic, health, education and otherwise – have on them. I would never say that we’re all the way there, Pearl. You’ve known me long enough to know that we’ve always got a lot of work to do. But I think we saw great evidence today of the power of leadership by women. (U.S./Department of State, November 2021)

The excerpt in Example 2 comes from the U.S. data. It is a reply by Gayle Smith, Coordinator for Global COVID-19 Response and Health Security, to a question posed by a journalist about women’s role in global health leadership during a press briefing. Despite not being a minority in terms of population numbers, Beazer et al. (2023) argue that women can be considered a minoritized group “due to their lack of power, access to power, and public prominence.” In the response in Example 2, Smith affirms the journalist’s stance on the importance of diversity in the global COVID-19 response (“as you rightly say”) and acknowledges that this is an area for improvement on the stage of international politics (“we’ve always got a lot of work to do”). However, the focus remains on the role of the government and their actions – they are “keeping a clear and focused eye” on how the pandemic affects women. Interestingly, even though she refers to the government as a collective “we,” Smith also takes a personal approach to her response by addressing the journalist by her first name and referring to their interpersonal relationship (“you’ve known me long enough”), which contribute to a trustworthy impression of herself as an authority. Overall, Smith’s response does ascribe agency to the marginalized group discussed – although it is worth noting that concrete details on the kind of “work” the U.S. government is doing to empower women are not provided. More prominently, however, the response contributes to a positive self-representation of the authorities.

Inclusion and equality in times of crises were thus used as political tools by the authorities – and successes in these areas were posited as evidence of good crisis management skills, as in the following example from U.S. President Joe Biden’s speech:

Example 3:

And the U.S. government has successfully put equity at the heart of a nationwide public health response. Hispanic, Black, and Asian adults are now vaccinated at the same rates as White adults. This is the result of an all-of-society effort that got America to where it is today: employers who offered paid time off for their employees; child care providers who offered drop-in services for caregivers to get vaccinated; public transit authorities and ride-sharing companies that provided free rides to vaccination sites; churches, civic organizations, barbershops, and beauty salons, who opened their doors to be trusted spaces for vaccinations; and the families who made vaccination a family affair. (U.S./ Biden Administration, March 2022)

Example 3 references the issue of vaccine hesitancy amongst racial and ethnic minorities. Although the wariness that members of marginalized groups experienced towards the rapidly developed vaccines stems from a long, complex history of medical inequality and mistreatment (Gibson, 2024: 263), the excerpt from Biden’s speech constructs it as a temporary obstacle that his administration has been able to solve. Biden frames lower vaccination rates among minorities as an issue of access and lists a range of actors from different levels of society who have engaged in mitigating actions – a strategy of bringing people together and creating social cohesion (Walter and Glas, 2024: 232). Notably, people belonging to racial and ethnic minorities are contrasted with white people, who are implied to have behaved in a desirable way (by getting vaccinated) from the start. Minority communities, again, are portrayed here as having less agency – for them to be able to act in a way the government expects, protective actions provided by an “all-of-society effort” have been necessary.

Marginalized people as targets for actions and restrictions

Even though marginalized groups were, for the most part, portrayed as passive recipients of others’ protection, there were also examples that focused on marginalized or vulnerable individuals’ own responsibility in complying with rules and recommendations. Sometimes marginalized groups were even directly addressed with particular messaging. For example, releases from both countries referenced the lower vaccination rates amongst certain ethnic minority groups. As we saw in Example 3, this was constructed as an important issue that the authorities – or “we” – needed to address. In Example 4, from the UK, unvaccinated minority groups are directly addressed by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, in a transcript of a speech:

Example 4:

And I want to take this moment and opportunity to counter some of the disinformation about the vaccine – especially any messages targeted towards those from an ethnic minority background.

This vaccine is safe for us all.

It will protect you and your family.

It is our best chance of beating this virus.

So I urge everyone across our wonderfully diverse country to get the vaccine when their turn comes to keep us all safe. (UK/News and communication on COVID-19, January 2021)

The excerpt in Example 4 presents the argument that ethnic minority groups are more likely to be exposed to vaccine disinformation but fails to acknowledge the complex, socio-historical factors that may have led to such minorities being less trusting of authorities as a source of information (Beazer et al., 2023). In terms of language use, the speaker’s relationship to the group addressed switches between out-group and in-group representations. Ethnic minority groups are, on the one hand, constructed as an out-group who need specific instruction – “those from an ethnic minority background” are urged to “get the vaccine when their turn comes” – but, on the other hand, they are also included in the more broadly defined “we” through statements that highlight the safety of the vaccines “for us all” and name getting vaccinated as “our best chance of beating the virus”. In this way, Patel simultaneously targets the message to specific groups and invokes citizens’ collective responsibility to “keep us all safe”. She also mitigates her potentially face-threatening action of “urging” ethnic minority groups to comply with government guidance by attributing positive features to the groups by referencing “our wonderfully diverse country”.

The U.S. data also featured several releases that addressed the specific effects the crisis had for racial and ethnic minorities. Although some of these releases acknowledged the socio-historical context of such groups being disproportionally affected, there were also discursive choices in the crisis communication that could lead to “othering” of ethnic minorities (Van Dijk 1993: 23; Wodak, 2008: 56). Example 5 comes from a press briefing between Vice President Mike Pence and the governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, regarding the COVID-19 situation in Arizona. In the excerpt, one of participants of the briefing, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, Dr Deborah Birx, discusses meeting with local community members and healthcare leaders in Arizona:

Example 5:

So in that meeting for community members from the Hispanic community, from the African American community, and today I got to meet with the tribal nation leaders – understanding that messages are not a standalone; that they have to translate into the very fabric of our communities so that people understand what their risks are, so that people can get tested, and so that people understand the importance of wearing a mask. [. . .] I want to thank the African American leader I met yesterday from the community who set up an African American task force to really make sure that messages from the Governor and the health team were being translated at the level of the people who needed to hear it. (U.S./Trump Administration, July 2020)

Even though Birx emphasizes the importance of targeting tailored messaging to certain ethnic minority groups, the arguments she makes also have more covert, problematic messaging. As Birx represents the U.S. government, she likely wishes to avoid acknowledging the lack of trust in authorities among ethnic minorities. Similar to Biden focusing on access in Example 3, Birx presents health inequality as caused by a lack of understanding – the authorities need to collaborate with community insiders in order to “translate” their messaging so that it is understood “at the level of the people”. Whether it is intentional or not, Birx’s speech portrays minorities negatively as “people who do not understand” the authorities’ crisis communication. Thus, a message meant to highlight the actions of the government positively – they are including and engaging minority communities – ends up potentially contributing to harmful stereotypes and stigma.

Marginalized people as grouped together

Particularly in the UK data, aggregation (KhosraviNik 2010: 64) was used often when referring to marginalized groups, meaning that a variety of different groups of people were “lumped together” in the texts. This kind of discursive choice carries the assumption that the experiences of the groups’ members are comparable; as Wodak (2008: 70–71) points out, mentioning specific social actors together “in the same breath” discursively constructs them as belonging together or as “the same”. Example 6 comes from the UK government’s release concerning the country’s COVID-19 recovery strategy, where several groups viewed as disproportionally affected by the crisis are mentioned:

Example 6:

Evidence shows the varying impacts on different groups or people with specific characteristics, including, but not limited, to BAME individuals, single parents, disabled individuals, victims of domestic abuse and low income groups, many of whom have been disproportionately affected. We have taken action to mitigate the impact on these groups, for example, tailoring communications to different groups, facilitating testing for high contact professions, enabling single adult households to form support bubbles, providing funding for charities working with vulnerable people, such as the victims of domestic abuse, and assisting disabled people to access employment opportunities via the Access to Work scheme.” (UK/Guidance and regulation during COVID-19, July 2020)

In Example 6, the UK authorities list a broad range of marginalized groups facing “varying impacts” of the pandemic, followed by the different actions they have taken to mitigate these impacts. Grouping various types of differently impacted people together in this way allows the authorities to also present their mitigating actions in the form of a list, which rhetorically highlights the broad variety of steps that have been taken, making them appear comprehensive. Presenting evidence of awareness and inclusion in this manner is efficient and impactful from the authorities’ perspective – however, grouping the actions together can also make it unclear how exactly specific groups are being helped (i.e., which actions benefit which groups). Some of the actions listed are also less concrete than others; for individuals struggling due to increased racism or structural oppression during the pandemic, the benefits of charity work and targeted crisis communication may not feel immediate enough. Again, the communication appears to function more as impression management for the authorities (Goffman, 1959) – evidence of what they are “doing right” – rather than providing helpful information for citizens.

Example 7 is another instance of grouping several, differently and intersectionally impacted groups together in the UK data, and it comes from a government release concerning changes to the two-meter social distancing guidance:

Example 7:

The social, economic, and health impacts of changing the 2m guidance are not evenly distributed. People employed in closed sectors are more likely to be young, not have a degree, and to work in low-skilled occupations. COVID-19 death rates are higher among older people, people in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and for men. It will continue to be important to advise medically vulnerable people to avoid closed spaces, crowded places and close-contact settings. (UK/Guidance and regulation during COVID-19, June 2020)

In this release, the government is reporting on new guidelines for social distancing, which allow for people to only keep a one-meter distance from each other under certain conditions. Throughout the release, scientific research on social distancing is referenced and used as a justification for revising the guidelines. However, in the excerpt in Example 7, an acknowledgement is made that the new guidance may not be applicable to certain vulnerable groups. Again, the release lists multiple groups that have different and intersecting risks: people of lower socio-economic status (described here with negative connotations, as working in “low-skilled occupations”), people belonging to certain demographics in terms of age, ethnicity and gender, and people considered “medically vulnerable.” The release does not provide any concrete details on how people belonging to one or more of these groups are considered in the guidance – instead, it states in general terms that these people should “be advised to avoid” situations where there is a heightened risk for infection. The responsibility of keeping oneself safe then falls to the marginalized individuals, even though it is mentioned in the guidance itself that this may not be possible in industries where workers are more likely to belong to vulnerable minorities. Thus, despite mentioning some marginalized groups as “exempt” from the revised restrictions, the guidance ultimately fails to consider people who occupy the intersections of multiple marginalized positions.

Marginalized people as “others”

While the releases from both countries featured examples of more covert exclusion or “othering” of, for example, racial and ethnic minorities (see section “Marginalized people as targets for actions and restrictions”), explicitly excluding the countries’ own citizens was rare. However, in the U.S. data, there was evidence of the authorities viewing specific non-U.S. groups as “others.” Overall, such discourses were realized through patterns of positive self-representation and negative other-representation (Van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 2015). For instance, the role of the U.S. in the global fight against the pandemic was represented positively by emphasizing features like humanitarianism (providing vaccines to other countries “no strings attached”) and high morals (descriptions of Americans as “committed,” “generous,” or “united”). The common practice of modifying group descriptors with “our” and “American,” observed in the section “References to groups”, also adds to this positive self-representation of the U.S. as united, and its authorities as inclusive and caring. Foreign governments and citizens of other countries, however, were depicted more negatively by, for example, emphasizing their struggles in managing the crisis. As a part of this “us vs. them” polarization, people from other countries were labelled as a threat to the public health and the security of the nation. For example, in a CDC release about temporary changes to migration policy (U.S./CDC, August 2021), “certain noncitizens” were said to “[create] a serious danger” of spreading COVID-19. This type of discourse is in line with previous research, which has identified a rise in nationalism and anti-migrant attitudes as one of the broader, political consequences of the pandemic on a global scale (Walter and Glas, 2024: 230).

The exclusionary discourse in the U.S. data was most apparent in discussions pertaining to China and Chinese people. The outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan increased tensions between the U.S. and China, and lead to a surge in Sinophobia and racism towards Asian ethnicity groups (Kania, 2023; Walter and Glas, 2024: 230). As discussed in earlier studies (e.g., Falco, 2022; Kania, 2023: 335), the U.S. President Donald Trump contributed to these discriminatory discourses by, for example, referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus”. In the present study as well, there are several instances of portraying China (and the Chinese) as an outgroup in the Trump Administration sub-corpus. Example 8 comes from a transcript of a press conference where Trump answers the question “Do you have an expectation of what the death toll is going to look like by the summer”:

Example 8:

You know what? I don’t want to think about it, even. I know that we’re doing everything we can. We’re doing a good job. We acted very early. We acted extremely early in keeping China out of our country and banning people from China coming in, other than our citizens, which we obviously had to take. And they were quarantined or watched carefully. They were tested. They were watched very carefully. (U.S./Trump Administration, May 2020)

In the excerpt in Example 8, Trump constructs both positive self-representations and negative other-representations. In terms of self-representation, he describes the actions of the U.S. government (“we”) with repeated positive evaluations (“good,” “extremely”), emphasizing that they are not at fault for the death toll. China and “people from China” are positioned as the out-group – the guilty party bringing in the virus despite “our” preventative actions. Interestingly, Trump’s response appears to also position U.S. citizens who were in China at the time of the outbreak in the out-group – as a “they” that “we had to take [in]” and carefully monitor. Thus, there is a negative association with not only China and the Chinese people, but also people with any connection to China.