虛假訊息的全球化：世界衛生組織的聲譽是否無法恢復？

Globalization of False Information: Is WHO’s Reputation Beyond Repair?

在過去的幾十年間，全世界見證了越發強烈的反全球化情緒，絕大因素是來自於全球化沒有包容性問題；另一方面，國際組織的權力提升足以威脅到國家主權的問題也是不容小覷。全球化蓬勃發展的前沿是靠資訊傳播，而資訊時代深刻改變了社會以及人與人之間交流的方式。在大量的假訊息充斥的背景下，人們迎來了後真相時代，假新聞的傳播速度更是人們前所未見。社群媒體間，無關緊要的閒聊事成了這時代的主流話題，因此個人或企業的聲譽成本被提高。一些著名的國際組織一樣無法阻擋錯誤訊息洪流，同時也經常傳遞假訊息給人們。本研究以世界衛生組織為例，將世界衛生組織於COVID-19大流行初期所公開訊息之虛實分開來分析，並藉由哈伯瑪斯（Jürgen Habermas）的溝通行為理論與情境式危機溝通理論來研究假訊息對世界衛生組織聲譽的影響，最後，透過過程追蹤法與二次文獻的蒐集，比較世界衛生組織目前和COVID-19大流行前的聲譽。研究結果發現世界衛生組織野心勃勃的逢迎策略，企圖儘早從中國方獲取相關訊息來實現保護利害關係者免於受害等溝通行為理論之目標；然而，該策略不但適得其反，甚至削弱了其組織做為一個公正組織的聲譽。本研究有助於了解（假）訊息的全球化以及國際組織在日益分裂的世界中的影響地位。

In the past couple of decades the world has witnessed stronger anti-globalization sentiments in large part because globalization has not been inclusive, and in part due to the increase in power of international institutions which could be perceived as a threat to states’ sovereignty. However, a frontier where globalization has been thriving is the spread of information. The Information Age has facilitated profound changes to societies and the ways people communicate. As a result, however, massive torrents of false information led to the “post-truth” era. The speed with which fake news spreads is unprecedented. In the time of social media, irrelevant chatter and matters dominate the discourse. As a result, reputational costs are expected to increase. International institutions are not immune to false information and are often spreading some as well as in the case of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research 1. separates facts from fiction about the actions of WHO shortly prior and with a focus on the initial stages of the pandemic; 2. assess the impacts of disinformation on WHO’s reputation with the help of a proposed integrated framework borrowing from Habermas’s communicative action and situational crisis communication theories, and 3. draws some parallels between WHO’s current reputation and its reputation prior the COVID-19 pandemic by using historical tracing and secondary sources. The evidence points towards an ambitious ingratiation strategy by the WHO to court China into getting information early on to satisfy communicative action goals such as protecting stakeholders from harm; however, the strategy backfired and eroded WHO’s reputation as an impartial organization. The analysis provides for a better understanding of the globalization of (dis)information and the status of international institutions in an increasingly fragmented world.