tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/fact-88782/articlesFact – The Conversation2022-12-19T13:35:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1923762022-12-19T13:35:48Z2022-12-19T13:35:48ZWhy is astronomy a science but astrology is not?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499880/original/file-20221208-17038-cv8u59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C10%2C2389%2C1785&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your zodiac sign – like Sagittarius, the archer – might be in the stars, but your future isn't.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/sagittarius-astrological-sign-on-ancient-clock-royalty-free-image/1180618747">scaliger/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Why is astronomy a science, but not astrology? – Katelyn, age 11, Arlington, Texas</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Are you sure astrology isn’t a science? </p>
<p>Both astrology and astronomy are in the business of making predictions. The theories of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/astrology">astrology</a> claim that the positions of the planets and the stars influence who you are and what happens to you: your job, your personality and your romantic partner. Astrologers make these predictions based on the positions of the planets at the time of your birth. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/astronomy">Astronomy</a>, in contrast, makes predictions about such phenomena as the movements of planets and the expansion of galaxies. Astronomers explain their predictions with such properties as masses, distances and gravitational forces.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cTBDU3AAAAAJ&hl=en">philosopher</a> and an <a href="https://anthropology.wustl.edu/people/talia-dan-cohen">anthropologist</a> who study what science means to society, we think it is important to separate the question of whether something is a science from the question of whether it is true or false.</p>
<h2>Astrology makes scientific claims</h2>
<p>Science, in essence, involves making and testing factual claims about the world. Factual claims are true or false descriptions of the world (Joe is 1 meter tall) as opposed to descriptions of how we define things (1 meter is 1,000 milimeters). In this sense, astrologers, like astronomers, make factual claims about the world. To us, that makes astrology sound a lot like a set of scientific beliefs.</p>
<p>For a very long time, until the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26567121">17th or 18th century</a>, astronomy and astrology were <a href="https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/content/did-you-know-influence-astrology-science-astronomy-along-silk-roads">practiced side by side</a>. After all, knowing where the planets were relative to the stars was necessary to make accurate predictions about how their locations influenced human affairs. That’s why astronomers and astrologers populated medical schools and governments, advising people on what the heavens signaled was to come on Earth.</p>
<p>Even famed astronomers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0021828618793218">Galileo</a> and <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kepler/">Kepler</a> practiced astrology. Any rule that says they are scientists only if they make one set of factual claims but not when they make another set of factual claims divides these thinkers into two halves that aren’t meant to be contradictory. In both cases, they wanted to know how things worked so they could predict how things would go in the future.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ph3HCXtuCQw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">For centuries, astrology was a respected science right alongside astronomy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Being false vs. being unscientific</h2>
<p>But here’s the rub: When researchers test the predictions astrology makes about people’s lives, those predictions turn out to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/318419a0">no better</a> <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/DEAIAR">than guesswork</a>.</p>
<p>There is currently no broadly accepted evidence that galactic forces are capable of influencing the choices people make. The truck parked on the street exerts more <a href="https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Apple,-the-Moon,-and-the-Inverse-Square-Law">gravitational pull</a> on you than Mars does, and the <a href="https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/">radio waves</a> from your local station far outpower those from Jupiter, for instance.</p>
<p>There is an important difference between being false and being unscientific. Currently, astrological theories are false precisely because they make scientific claims about the world, and those claims turn out to be wrong. Although the predictions astrology makes are false, they are nonetheless a matter of science. That’s how we know they are wrong, after all.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Diagram of constellations" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499829/original/file-20221208-13989-yviwsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Image from ‘Astronomy Without a Telescope’ (1869).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/ov6YFR">Internet Archive Book Images/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some people believe they find support for astrological predictions in their own personal experience. They read their horoscope and it seems just right: They did “meet someone interesting” or “benefit from listening to a close friend’s advice.” But the predictions are <a href="https://scitechdaily.com/the-barnum-effect-why-horoscopes-are-so-popular/">vague enough</a> that they would often be true even if astrology were utterly bogus. That’s why it can be difficult to figure out how to assess an astrologer’s predictions with precision.</p>
<p>Theories of astronomy, on the other hand, have evolved over the years with advances in technology. They are routinely corrected in response to increasingly precise measurements. For example, Einstein’s <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163540702">theory of general relativity</a> got a boost over Newton’s because it predicted the precise migration of Mercury’s closest point to the Sun year after year. If astrology had the same ability to make correct predictions with such precision, it might still be a major focus of scientific attention.</p>
<h2>Why is astrology still popular?</h2>
<p>But then why do so many people find astrology so useful if its predictions are not well founded? Why are astrological signs and horoscopes so popular? </p>
<p>It seems that looking to the sky to make some sense of what’s going on right now and what’s going to happen in the future has appealed to a lot of different people at different times in history all over the world.</p>
<p>When it comes to what’s commonly known as Western astrology, many people find their astrological sign to be a <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-are-horoscopes-still-thing-180957701/">source of meaning</a> in their lives. In fact, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among-both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans/">nearly 30% of Americans</a> believe in astrology. It’s one of many tools we have for telling stories about ourselves to make sense of who we are, why we are that way and why experiences that otherwise would feel meaningless and confusing seem to happen to us all the time. In this sense, astrology’s success might be less about prediction and more about what it offers in terms of meaning and interpretation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Silhouette of person looking up at a night sky next to camera." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499827/original/file-20221208-12502-4yk09u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Throughout history, people have looked to the stars to derive some form of meaning from existence.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/silhouette-man-standing-against-star-field-royalty-free-image/956508114?adppopup=true">Christianto Soning/EyeEm via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Among other things, astrology can be a useful prompt for self-reflection. It asks us whether we have traits typical of our astrological sign, and whether those we love have traits the theory suggests they ought to have. Thinking about our traits and relationships with the people around us is generally a good tool for understanding who we are, what we want to be and the meaning of our lives. Perhaps astrology is helpful in this way, independently of whether those traits are fixed by the stars. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192376/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carl Craver receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Talia Dan-Cohen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Astrology and astronomy were once practiced side by side by scientists like Galileo and Kepler. And they’re more similar than you might think.Talia Dan-Cohen, Associate Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. LouisCarl Craver, Professor of Philosophy and Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1505092020-12-01T13:25:17Z2020-12-01T13:25:17ZYour brain’s built-in biases insulate your beliefs from contradictory facts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372118/original/file-20201130-21-q7ey1o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=126%2C183%2C7539%2C4884&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These psychological tendencies explain why an onslaught of facts won't necessarily change anyone's mind.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/conflict-royalty-free-image/1061219956">Francesco Carta fotografo/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A rumor started circulating back in 2008 that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. At the time, I was serving as chair of the Hawaii Board of Health. The director and deputy director of health, both appointed by a Republican governor, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42519951">inspected Obama’s birth certificate</a> in the state records and certified that it was real.</p>
<p>I would have thought that this evidence would settle the matter, but it didn’t. Many people thought the birth certificate was a fabricated document. Today, many <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/birtherism-and-trump/610978/">people still believe</a> that President Obama was not born in the U.S.</p>
<p>I once listened to a “Science Friday” <a href="https://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132740175/paul-offit-on-the-anti-vaccine-movement">podcast on the anti-vaccination movement</a>. A woman called in who didn’t believe that vaccines were safe, despite <a href="https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety">overwhelming scientific evidence that they are</a>. The host asked her how much proof she would need in order to believe that vaccines were safe. Her answer: No amount of scientific evidence could change her mind.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=87v4Nk4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As a psychologist</a>, I was bothered, but not shocked, by this exchange. There are several well-known mechanisms in human psychology that enable people to continue to hold tight to beliefs even in the face of contradictory information.</p>
<h2>Cognitive shortcuts come with biases</h2>
<p>In its early days, the science of psychology assumed that people would make rational decisions. But over the decades, it’s become clear that many decisions people make – about choices ranging from romantic partners and finances to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.01.002">risky health behaviors</a> like unsafe sex and <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155382">health-promoting behaviors</a> – are not made rationally.</p>
<p>Instead, human minds have a tendency toward several <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/cognitive-bias/565775/">cognitive biases</a>. These are systematic errors in the way you think about the world. Given the complexity of the world around you, your brain cuts a few corners to help you process complex information quickly.</p>
<p>For example, the availability bias refers to the tendency to use information you can quickly recall. This is helpful when you’re ordering ice cream at a place with 50 flavors; you don’t need to think about all of them, just one you recently tried and liked. Unfortunately these shortcuts can mean you end up at a nonrational decision.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="looking at camera man holds up a finger" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372119/original/file-20201130-21-1iks1yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In efficiency mode, your mind may discount contradictory information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-businessman-rejecting-your-offer-royalty-free-image/1165905568">DjelicS/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One form of cognitive bias is called <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850">cognitive dissonance</a>. This is the feeling of discomfort you can experience when your beliefs are not in line with your actions or new information. When in this state, people can reduce their dissonance in one of two ways: changing their beliefs to be in line with the new information or interpreting the new information in a way that justifies their original beliefs. In many cases, people choose the latter, whether consciously or not.</p>
<p>For example, maybe you think of yourself as active, not at all a couch potato – but you spend all of Saturday lying on the couch bingeing reality TV. You can either start thinking about yourself in a new way or justify your behavior, maybe by saying you had a really busy week and need to rest up for your workout tomorrow.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23274">confirmation bias</a> is another process that helps you justify your beliefs. It involves favoring information that supports your beliefs and downplaying or ignoring information to the contrary. Some researchers have called this “<a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237827">my side blindness</a>” – people see the flaws in arguments that are contradictory to their own but are unable to see weaknesses in their own side. Picture fans of a football team that went 7-9 for the season, arguing that their team is actually really strong, spotting failings in other teams but not in theirs.</p>
<p>With the decline of mass media over the past few decades and the increase in niche media and social media, it’s become easier to <a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-and-biases-infect-social-media-both-intentionally-and-accidentally-97148">surround yourself with messages you already agree with</a> while minimizing your exposure to messages you don’t. These information bubbles reduce cognitive dissonance but also make it harder to change your mind when you are wrong.</p>
<h2>Shoring up beliefs about yourself</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman seething behind the wheel of a car" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/372120/original/file-20201201-20-1cyeluq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I’m nice, so this confrontation must be their fault.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/road-rage-royalty-free-image/1070981954">Petri Oeschger/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It can be especially hard to change certain beliefs that are central to your <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60075-1">self-concept</a> – that is, who you think you are. For example, if you believe you’re a kind person and you cut someone off in traffic, instead of thinking that maybe you’re not all that nice, it’s easier to think the other person was driving like a jerk.</p>
<p>This relationship between beliefs and self-concept can be reinforced by affiliations with groups like political parties, cults or other like-minded thinkers. These groups are often belief bubbles where the majority of members believe the same thing and repeat these beliefs to one another, strengthening the idea that their beliefs are right.</p>
<p>Researchers have found that people generally think they are <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/31/18200497/dunning-kruger-effect-explained-trump">more knowledgeable </a> about certain issues than they really are. This has been demonstrated across a variety of studies looking at vaccinations, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine and <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533524/the-knowledge-illusion-by-steven-sloman-and-philip-fernbach/">even how toilets work</a>. These ideas then get passed from person to person without being based on fact. For example, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488">70% of Republicans</a> say they don’t believe the 2020 presidential election was free and fair despite a lack of any evidence of widespread voter fraud.</p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-favorite">Weekly on Wednesdays</a>.]</p>
<p>Belief bubbles and the defenses against cognitive dissonance can be hard to break down. And they can have important downstream effects. For instance, these psychological mechanisms affect the ways people have chosen whether or not to follow public health guidelines around social distancing and wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes with <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/">deadly consequences</a>.</p>
<p>Changing people’s minds is difficult. Given the confirmation bias, evidence-based arguments counter to what someone already believes are likely to be discounted. The best way to change a mind is to start with yourself. With as open a mind as you can summon, think about why you believe what you do. Do you really understand the issue? Could you think about it in a different way?</p>
<p>As a professor, I like to have my students debate ideas from the side that they personally disagree with. This tactic tends to lead to deeper understanding of the issues and makes them question their beliefs. Give it an honest try yourself. You might be surprised by where you end up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150509/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jay Maddock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cognitive shortcuts help you efficiently move through a complicated world. But they come with an unwelcome side effect: Facts aren’t necessarily enough to change your mind.Jay Maddock, Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1433522020-08-11T20:08:47Z2020-08-11T20:08:47ZCoronavirus misinformation is a global issue, but which myth you fall for likely depends on where you live<p>In February, major social media platforms attended a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-technology/white-house-to-meet-large-tech-companies-to-discuss-ways-to-control-coronavirus-outbreak-idUSKBN20X3CH">meeting hosted by the World Health Organisation</a> to address coronavirus misinformation. The aim was to catalyse the fight against what the United Nations has called an “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19">infodemic</a>”. </p>
<p>Usually, misinformation is focused on specific regions and topics. But COVID-19 is different. For what seems like the first time, both misinformation and fact-checking behaviours are coordinated around a common set of narratives the world over. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">research</a>, we identified the key trends in both coronavirus misinformation and fact-checking efforts. Using Google’s <a href="https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer">Fact Check Explorer computing interface</a> we tracked fact-check posts from January to July – with the first checks appearing as early as January 22. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352176/original/file-20200811-23-8q2s3q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google’s Fact Check Explorer database is connected with a range of fact-checkers, most of which are part of the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A uniform rate of growth</h2>
<p>Our research found the volume of fact-checks on coronavirus misinformation increased steadily in the early stages of the virus’s spread (January and February) and then increased sharply in March and April – when the virus <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00758-2">started to spread globally</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, we found the same pattern of gradual and then sudden increase even after dividing fact-checks into Spanish, Hindi, Indonesian and Portuguese. </p>
<p>Thus, misinformation and subsequent fact-checking efforts trended in a similar way right across the globe. This is a unique feature of COVID-19. </p>
<p>According to our analysis, there has been no equivalent global trend for other issues such as elections, terrorism, police activity or immigration.</p>
<h2>Different nations, different misconceptions</h2>
<p>On March 16, the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, in collaboration with Microsoft Research, <a href="https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/esoc-covid-19-disinformation-tracking-report">began cataloguing COVID-19 misinformation</a>. </p>
<p>It did this by collating news articles with reporting by a wide range of local fact-checking networks and global groups such as Agence France-Presse and NewsGuard.</p>
<p>We analysed this data set to explore the evolution of specific COVID-19 narratives, with “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEE9TjqPjuUeTtZzyEAGHi5Mmu2V5P1N/view">narrative</a>” referring to the type of story a piece of misinformation pushes. </p>
<p>For instance, one misinformation narrative concerns the “origin of the virus”. This includes the false claim the virus jumped to humans as a result of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-dodgy-cures-and-diseasology-the-spread-of-coronavirus-bunkum">someone eating</a> <a href="https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus-bat-soup">bat soup</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">The Conversation's FactCheck granted accreditation by International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found the most common narrative worldwide was related to “emergency responses”. These stories reported false information about government or political responses to fighting the virus’s outbreak.</p>
<p>This may be because, unlike narratives surrounding the “nature of the virus”, it is easy to speculate on (and hard to prove) whether people in power have good or ill intent.</p>
<p>Notably, this was also the most common narrative in the US, with an early example being a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/tech/twitter-coronavirus-new-york-misinformation/index.html">false rumour</a> the New York Police Department would immediately lock down New York City. </p>
<p>What’s more, a major motivation for spreading misinformation on social media is politics. The US is a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/">polarised political environment</a>, so this might help explain the trend towards political misinformation.</p>
<p>We also found China has more misinformation narratives than any other country. This may be because China is the world’s most populous country. </p>
<p>However, it’s worth noting the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet/china-launches-platform-to-stamp-out-online-rumors-idUSKCN1LF0HL">main fact-checking website</a> used by the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project for misinformation coming out of China is run by the Chinese Communist Party. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349615/original/file-20200727-29-tdwmlm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This chart shows the proportion of total misinformation narratives on COVID-19 by the top ten countries between January and July, 2020.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When fighting misinformation, it is important to have as wide a range of <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ifcn-fact-checkers-code-of-principles/">independent and transparent</a> fact-checkers as possible. This reduces the potential for bias.</p>
<h2>Hydroxychloroquine and other (non) ‘cures’</h2>
<p>Another set of misinformation narratives was focused on “false cures” or “false preventative measures”. This was among the most common themes in both China and Australia. </p>
<p>One example was a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/virus-video-trump.html">video</a> that went viral on social media suggesting hydroxychloroquine is an effective coronavirus treatment. This is despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-a-new-review-of-several-studies-shows-flaws-in-research-and-no-benefit-137869">experts stating</a> it is <em>not</em> a proven COVID-19 treatment, and can actually have harmful side effects.</p>
<p>Myths about the “nature of the virus” were also common. These referred to specific characteristics of the virus – such as that it can’t spread on surfaces. We know this <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-environmental-cleaning-and-disinfection-principles-for-health-and-residential-care-facilities.pdf">isn’t true</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-know-how-long-coronavirus-survives-on-surfaces-heres-what-it-means-for-handling-money-food-and-more-134671">We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here's what it means for handling money, food and more</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Narratives reflect world events</h2>
<p>Our analysis found different narratives peaked at different stages of the virus’s spread. </p>
<p>Misinformation about the nature of the virus was prevalent during the outbreak’s early stages, probably spurred by an initial lack of scientific research regarding the nature of the virus. </p>
<p>In contrast, theories relating to emergency responses surfaced later and remain even now, as governments continue to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2020/aug/11/life-under-covid-19-lockdown-in-melbourne">implement measures</a> to fight COVID-19’s spread. </p>
<h2>A wide variety of fact-checkers</h2>
<p>We also identified greater diversity in websites fact-checking COVID-19 misinformation, compared to those investigating other topics.</p>
<p>Since January, only 25% of 6,000 fact-check posts or articles were published by the top five fact-checking websites (ranked by number of posts). In comparison, 68% of 3,000 climate change fact-checks were published by the top five websites. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-help-stop-the-infodemic-the-increasing-misinformation-about-coronavirus-137561">5 ways to help stop the 'infodemic,' the increasing misinformation about coronavirus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It seems resources previously devoted to a wide range of topics are now homing in on coronavirus misinformation. Nonetheless, it’s impossible to know the total volume of this content online.</p>
<p>For now, the best defence is for governments and online platforms to increase awareness about false claims and build on the robust fact-checking infrastructures at our disposal.</p>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143352/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Shapiro has received funding for work relevant to this topic from the Bertelsmann Foundation and Microsoft.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jan Oledan is affiliated with the World Bank Group.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Weismueller and Paul Harrigan do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to COVID-19 misinformation, not all nations are the same. Some are peddling a larger variety of myths than others - and each seems to have its own personal favourite.Jason Weismueller, Doctoral Researcher, The University of Western AustraliaJacob Shapiro, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityJan Oledan, Research Specialist, Princeton UniversityPaul Harrigan, Associate Professor of Marketing, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1409012020-06-22T12:17:38Z2020-06-22T12:17:38ZJournalists believe news and opinion are separate, but readers can’t tell the difference<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342803/original/file-20200618-41238-19j01o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Readers don't always know how to distinguish fact from opinion.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gatehouse-media-owned-palm-beach-post-and-the-gannett-co-news-photo/1166289246?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned recently after the paper published <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">a controversial opinion essay</a> by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton that advocated using the military to put down protests. </p>
<p>The essay sparked outrage among the public as well as among younger reporters at the paper. Many of those staffers participated in <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/this-puts-black-people-in-danger-new-york-times-staffers-band-together-to-protest-tom-cottons-anti-protest-editorial/">a social media campaign</a> aimed at the paper’s leadership, asking for factual corrections and an editor’s note explaining what was wrong with the essay.</p>
<p>Eventually, the staff uprising forced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.html">Bennet’s departure</a>. </p>
<p>Cotton’s column was published on the opinion pages – not the news pages. But that’s a distinction often lost on the public, whose criticisms during the recent incident were often directed <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonFarmer15/status/1269729759946330113?s=20">at the paper as a whole</a>, including its news coverage. All of which raises a longstanding question: What’s the difference between the news and opinion side of a news organization? </p>
<p>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But the <a href="https://newslit.org/get-smart/did-you-know-news-opinion/">divide between news and opinion is not as clear to many readers</a> as journalists believe that it is. </p>
<p>And because American news consumers have become accustomed to the ideal of objectivity in news, the idea that opinions bleed into the news report potentially leads readers to suspect that reporters have a political agenda, which damages their credibility, and that of their news organizations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342987/original/file-20200619-43187-190thvb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=702&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The op-ed column by Sen. Tom Cotton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html">New York Times screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How news and opinion grew apart</h2>
<p>Long before newspapers became institutions for collecting and distributing news, they were instruments for the personal expression of individuals – their owners. There was little thought given to whether or not opinion and fact were intermingled. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/pennsylvania-gazette/#:%7E:text=Pennsylvania%20Gazette,Pennsylvania%20Gazette%20from%20Samuel%20Keimer.">Benjamin Franklin ran the Pennsylvania Gazette</a> from 1729 to 1748 as a vehicle for his own political and scientific ideas and even just his day-to-day observations. The <a href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/">Gazette of the United States</a>, first published in 1789, was the most prominent Federalist paper of its time and was funded in part by Alexander Hamilton, whose letters and essays it published anonymously.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342986/original/file-20200619-43187-1r8xor9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=652&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Front page of the inaugural issue of the Gazette of the United States, from April 15, 1789.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030483/1789-04-15/ed-1/seq-1/">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the early 19th century, newspapers were <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/07/16/from-tom-paine-to-glenn-greenwald-we-need-partisan-journalism/">often nakedly partisan</a>, since many of them were funded by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/party-press-era">political parties</a>. </p>
<p>Over the course of the 19th century, though, newspapers began to seek a popular audience. As they grew in circulation, some began to emphasize their independence from faction. </p>
<p>Coupled with the rise of journalism schools and press organizations, this independence enshrined “fact” and “truth” as what scholar Barbie Zelizer calls <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1479142042000180953">“God-terms” of journalism</a> by the early 20th century.</p>
<p>Newspaper owners never wanted to give up their influence on public opinion, however. As news became the main product of the newspaper, publishers established editorial pages, where they could continue to endorse their favorite politicians or push for pet causes. </p>
<p>These pages are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/about-the-times-editorial-board">typically run by editorial boards</a>, which are staffs of writers, often with individual areas of expertise (economics or foreign policy or, in smaller papers, state politics), who draft editorial essays. They are then voted on by the board, which usually includes the publisher. They’re then published, usually with no author attribution, as the official opinions of the newspaper. There are variations on this process: Often the editorial board will decide on topics and the paper’s opinion before these writers get to work on their drafts.</p>
<p>James Bennet, The New York Times opinion editor who resigned, acknowledged in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/reader-center/editorial-board-explainer.html">an article on the paper’s website</a> that was published in January 2020, months before the Cotton essay, that “the role of the editorial board can be confusing, particularly to readers who don’t know The Times well.”</p>
<p>Through most the 20th century, newspapers reassured their readers and their reporters that there was a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3118032">“wall” between the news and opinion sides</a> of their operations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342807/original/file-20200618-41204-9c3jfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unbiased journalism is a relatively new phenomenon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-by-the-front-of-the-new-york-times-building-on-news-photo/1027689402?adppopup=true">Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Publishers relied on this idea of separation to insist that their news reporting was fair and independent, and they believed that readers understood that separation.</p>
<p>This is a particularly American way of operating. Readers in <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2015/04/28/our-partisan-press-does-it-matter-to-journalism-or-politics/">other countries</a> usually expect their newspapers to have a point of view, representing a particular party or ideology.</p>
<h2>The creation of the op-ed page</h2>
<p>One way that newspapers found to allow a greater range of opinion in its pages was to create an op-ed page, which publishes opinions by individuals, not those of the editorial board. As journalism historian <a href="https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cmj_facpub">Michael Socolow recounts</a>, John Oakes, the editorial page editor of The New York Times in 1970, created the first op-ed page because, he felt, “a newspaper most effectively fulfills its social and civic responsibilities by challenging authority, acting independently, and inviting dissent.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.seattletimescompany.com/editorial/howtoread.htm">“Op-ed” is short for “opposite the editorial page,”</a> not “opinion and editorial” or opinions that are opposite from those of the editorial page. Literally, the name comes from the fact that it was located across from – opposite – the editorial page in the print newspaper.</p>
<p>The op-ed page of a print newspaper typically includes the newspaper’s opinion columnists. These are employees of the paper who write regularly. The paper also usually publishes a selection of opinion pieces from outside writers. Newspapers around the country emulated the Times after the op-ed page debuted.</p>
<h2>Online opinions, changing norms and blurred lines</h2>
<p>With the expansion of opinion pages online, the Times was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-publisher-ag-sulzberger-laments-loss-of-a-talent-like-james-bennet">publishing 120 opinion pieces a week</a> at the time of James Bennet’s resignation.</p>
<p>While the move online allows The New York Times op-ed page to vastly increase its output, it also creates a problem: Opinion stories <a href="https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2017/news-or-opinion-online-its-hard-to-tell/">no longer look clearly different</a> from news stories. </p>
<p>With many readers coming to news sites from social media links, they may not pay attention to the subtle clues that mark a story published by the opinion staff. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342985/original/file-20200619-43209-6uq3f8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Washington Post homepage on June 19, 2020. Opinions at top right; reporting to the left.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true">Screenshot</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Add to this the fact that even readers who go to a paper’s homepage are met with news and opinion stories displayed graphically at the same level, connoting the same level of importance. And reporters share analysis and opinion on Twitter, further confusing readers. </p>
<p>The news sections of the paper also increasingly run <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13pubed.html">stories that contain a level of news analysis</a> that casual readers might not be able to distinguish from what The New York Times designates as opinion.</p>
<p>In 1970, when the op-ed page debuted in The New York Times, <a href="http://media-cmi.com/downloads/Sixty_Years_Daily_Newspaper_Circulation_Trends_050611.pdf">daily newspaper circulation was equivalent to 98% of U.S. households</a>. By 2010, that number had dropped below 40% and has continued to dip since then.</p>
<p>Even if readers in 1970 could clearly differentiate between news and opinion, they likely do not have the same level of critical engagement when news exists online and in almost unmanageable volume. </p>
<p>If news organizations such as The New York Times continue to maintain that a robust opinion section, separate from their news reports, serves to further the public conversation, then those institutions will need to do a better job of explaining to news consumers where – or if – the “wall” between news and opinion exists.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin M. Lerner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is a tenet of American journalism that reporters working for the news sections of newspapers remain entirely independent of the opinion sections. But that wall may be invisible to readers.Kevin M. Lerner, Assistant Professor of Journalism, Marist CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.