Interpreting the Truth: Online Comments About Video Alleging to Show Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts

• In Event: ICA Interactive paper/Poster Session I
  In Interactive Paper Session: Health Communication Interactive Poster Session

Abstract

This study in progress examines beliefs about abortion by analyzing how people in Internet user comments interpreted a video released in July 2015 that purported to show Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies. Planned Parenthood, in response, insisted that they do not sell fetal tissue, but rather accept cost reimbursement for aborted material that is donated to medical research.

To ensure broad diversity of articulated viewpoints, we collected user comments on news articles about the video from five distinct classes of website, stratified along axes of articulated partisanship and extent of focus on abortion. From each of these five sources, we selected the first news article published on the site about the Planned Parenthood video that garnered at least 50 user comments. Although the makers of the video ultimately released a series of videos, we focus on the response to the first video as it represented the first broad public engagement with what to most people was new information about these practices. The sampled articles yielded 3,053 comments (see Table 1).

Table 1: Websites and Comments

To analyze the comments, we identified recurring themes relating to how commenters interpreted the video and the articles about the video. We used open coding based on a grounded theory approach.

Our analysis demonstrates stark divergences in 1) how commenters interpreted the same “facts” and 2) which “facts” they considered relevant and important. Different people offered fundamentally opposing interpretations of the same information.

Disagreement about what the video depicted, i.e. what the “facts” were, was embodied in discussions about whether the video depicted sale or donation and whether the aborted material was properly called “tissue” or “parts.” Some cited evidence in the video that convinced them the transaction was a sale; others discussed the transaction as a donation. Similarly, many comments referred to the aborted material as “tissue” while others referred to it as “baby parts” or “body parts.”

In addition to such differing interpretations of what the video depicted, we also identified disagreements about which facts mattered to commenters. While one group of comments described the emotional tenor of the people in the video as callous and inappropriate, others argued that the same behavior was necessary professional detachment. Similarly, many commenters argued that the editing of the video was misleading and misrepresented what actually takes place at Planned Parenthood. Others argued that the editing did not meaningfully alter the content of the video. In other words, there was disagreement as to whether callousness and editing were even relevant criteria for interpreting the video.

Importantly, these are more than just factual interpretations; they are the foundation for moral evaluations, and often extend beyond evaluations of the video content to include evaluations of Planned Parenthood and even of abortion itself. Intertwined with opposing factual interpretations are opposing moral interpretations, which line up in evident ideological patterns, such that certain positions (donation, tissue, professional detachment, editing matters) correspond to pro-Planned Parenthood stances, while other positions (sale, parts, callousness, editing doesn’t matter) correspond to anti-Planned Parenthood positions. In addition, positions toward Planned Parenthood often expand to exhibit positions toward abortion.
While we are still situating these findings within existing literature, and full consideration of the contributions of this research is still underway, there are likely implications for the notion that misunderstandings about abortion can be corrected with better facts. Ideological frameworks seem to complicate both how “facts” are interpreted and what information is considered a relevant fact.

Authors

• Katrina Kimport, U of California - San Francisco

• Colin Doty, free lance