  Effective communication during health crises is critical, with social media
serving as a key platform for public health experts (PHEs) to engage with the
public. However, it also amplifies pseudo-experts promoting contrarian views.
Despite its importance, the role of emotional and moral language in PHEs'
communication during COVID-19 remains under explored. This study examines how
PHEs and pseudo-experts communicated on Twitter during the pandemic, focusing
on emotional and moral language and their engagement with political elites.
Analyzing tweets from 489 PHEs and 356 pseudo-experts from January 2020 to
January 2021, alongside public responses, we identified key priorities and
differences in messaging strategy. PHEs prioritize masking, healthcare,
education, and vaccines, using positive emotional language like optimism. In
contrast, pseudo-experts discuss therapeutics and lockdowns more frequently,
employing negative emotions like pessimism and disgust. Negative emotional and
moral language tends to drive engagement, but positive language from PHEs
fosters positivity in public responses. PHEs exhibit liberal partisanship,
expressing more positivity towards liberals and negativity towards conservative
elites, while pseudo-experts show conservative partisanship. These findings
shed light on the polarization of COVID-19 discourse and underscore the
importance of strategic use of emotional and moral language by experts to
mitigate polarization and enhance public trust.
