Epistemic authority of experts in the <i>New York Times</i> and the <i>New York Post</i> : A corpus-assisted comparative study

Employing corpus-assisted discourse studies, this paper examines how COVID-19-related newspaper articles employ linguistic and discursive strategies to introduce and frame expert statements in ways that influence the epistemic authority of science and expertise. The findings indicate that the right-leaning tabloid New York Post referred to experts vaguely and represented scientific research as entertainment rather than as a crucial element of crisis management. By contrast, the left-leaning New York Times drew on experts in diverse ways, such as to present scientific evidence, contextualize events, and provide background information. However, expert statements in the Times were also mobilized to support political criticism, which may undermine perceptions of experts’ impartiality and contribute to declining trust. I argue that newspapers use expert voices to advance their own political attitudes, which can lead to declining trust in science. Overall, the study sheds light on the role of the press in shaping polarized attitudes toward expertise.