{"id":87694,"date":"2021-02-22T11:57:50","date_gmt":"2021-02-22T16:57:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/"},"modified":"2024-07-25T16:25:05","modified_gmt":"2024-07-25T20:25:05","slug":"misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"3. Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Unprecedented national news events, a sharp and sometimes hostile political divide, and polarized news streams created a ripe environment for misinformation and made-up news in 2020. The truth surrounding the two intense, yearlong storylines \u2013 the coronavirus pandemic and the presidential election \u2013 was often a matter of dispute, whether due to genuine confusion or the intentional distortion of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pew Research Center\u2019s American News Pathways project<\/a> revealed consistent differences in what parts of the population \u2013 including political partisans and consumers of particular news outlets \u2013 heard and believed about the developments involving COVID-19 and the election. For example, news consumers who consistently turned only to outlets with right-leaning audiences were more likely to hear about and believe in certain false or unproven claims<\/a>. In some cases, the study also showed that made-up news and misinformation have become labels applied to pieces of news and information that do not fit into people\u2019s preferred worldview or narrative \u2013 regardless of whether the information was actually made up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, differences in political party or news diet are not always <\/i>linked with differences in perceptions of misinformation, nor are they the only factors that have an impact. As explained in Chapter 2<\/a>, using Donald Trump himself as a news source connects closely to beliefs about certain false claims and exposure to misinformation. So, too, does the reliance on social media as the primary pathway to one\u2019s news, as discussed in Chapter 4<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pathways project, then, revealed the degree to which the spread of misinformation is pervasive, but not uniform. Americans\u2019 exposure to \u2013 and belief in \u2013 misinformation differs by both the specific news outlets and more general pathways they rely on most. Certain types of misinformation emerge more or less strongly within each of these. For example, Americans who rely most on social media for their news (and who also pay less attention to news generally and are less knowledgeable about it) get exposed to different misinformation threads than those who turn only to sources with right-leaning audiences, or to Trump. Both of these latter groups are also more ideologically united and pay very close attention to news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway #1: Most Americans said they saw made-up news and expressed concern about it<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Most<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Even a year before the 2020 election, in November 2019, the vast majority of Americans said they were either \u201cvery\u201d (48%) or \u201csomewhat\u201d (34%) concerned about the impact made-up news<\/a> could have on the election. This concern cut across party lines, with almost identical shares of Democrats (including independents who lean toward the Democratic Party) and Republicans (including GOP leaners) expressing these views. But on both sides of the aisle, people were far more concerned that made-up news would be targeted at members of their own party<\/a> rather than the other party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A year later, in the weeks following the election, Americans said these fears were borne out: 60% of U.S. adults overall said they felt made-up news had a major impact on the outcome of the election, and an additional 26% said it had a minor impact. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say it had a major impact (69% vs. 54%). In addition, nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults overall (72%) said they had come across at least \u201csome\u201d election news that seemed completely made up, though far fewer \u2013 18% \u2013 felt the made-up news they saw was aimed directly at them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the year, many Americans also felt exposed to made-up news related to the coronavirus pandemic, a phenomenon that grew over time. As of mid-March 20<\/a>20, 48% of Americans said they had seen at least some news related to COVID-19 that seemed completely made up. By mid-April, that figure had risen to 64%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, older Americans, those who paid more attention to news and those who showed higher levels of knowledge on a range of core political questions expressed greater concern<\/a> about the impact of made-up news. Republicans also expressed more concern and said it\u2019s harder to identify what is true<\/a> when it comes to COVID-19 news<\/a>. Meanwhile, those who relied most on social media<\/a> for political news tended to express less concern about made-up news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway #2: What Americans categorized as made-up news varied widely \u2013 and often aligned with partisan views<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\"Asked<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Especially in America\u2019s polarized political environment, just because people say that something seemed made up doesn\u2019t mean it was. Without a doubt, many Americans who report encountering made-up news actually did, while others likely came across real, fact-based news that did not fit into their perceptions of what is true. Indeed, open-ended survey responses show that people\u2019s examples of made-up news they saw run the gamut \u2013 often connected with partisan divides about reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March of 2020, after asking whether people had come across made-up news related to COVID-19, the American News Pathways project<\/a> asked respondents to write in an example of something they came across that was made up<\/a>. The responses were revealing, and sometimes contradictory: Roughly four-in-ten (41%) among those who provided an example named something related to the level of risk associated with the outbreak. Within this category, 22% said the \u201cmade-up\u201d information falsely elevated the risks (Republicans were more likely to say this than Democrats), and 15% felt the made-up information was falsely downplaying the risks (Democrats were more likely to give these examples).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respondents\u2019 examples of made-up news that exaggerated the severity of the pandemic included such claims as numbers of COVID-19 deaths that seemed higher than possible, and the idea that risks had been overplayed by investors so they could make \u201cgobs of money.\u201d Some of these respondents said it was the media overhyping the risk, including one respondent who objected to a front-page newspaper photo designed to equate the coronavirus with the 1918 Spanish flu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the flip side, respondents\u2019 examples of made-up news that underplayed COVID-19\u2019s significance included references to statements made by Trump or his administration, including the then-president predicting an early end to the crisis<\/a> and suggesting that the number of cases in the U.S. would remain low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three-in-ten respondents pointed to details about the virus itself. This included some truly made-up claims, such as that it could be \u201ccured with certain supplements, minerals and vitamins,\u201d and others that were perceived by respondents as made up but were not. For example, some respondents listed \u201cwearing a mask for the general public\u201d as an example of a misleading claim. Finally, 10% identified purely political statements as examples of misinformation, such as \u201cThat Trump didn\u2019t act quickly enough,\u201d or, by contrast, that \u201cAlmost everything Donald Trump has said\u201d about the coronavirus has constituted made-up news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway #3: While political divides were a big part of the equation, news diet within<\/em> party has been a consistent factor in what Americans believe, whether true or untrue<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In addition to wholly made-up claims, another finding to emerge from the Pathways project was the degree to which news diet also plays into the storylines \u2013 both true and untrue \u2013 that people get exposed to, how that feeds into perceptions about those events and, ultimately, different views of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This phenomenon appears more strongly among Republicans than among Democrats, in large part due to the smaller mix of outlets Republicans tend to rely on \u2013 and within that, the outsize role of Fox News<\/a>. (This is in addition to differences in perceptions and beliefs between Republicans who relied on Trump for news and those who didn\u2019t, written about in Chapter 2<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s first impeachment<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Consider one of the first news topics covered by the project: the 2019 impeachment of Donald Trump, which involved Trump\u2019s behavior and motives in withholding military aid to Ukraine<\/a>, as well as actions there<\/a> by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden (whom Trump had asked Ukraine\u2019s government to investigate).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Pathways survey conducted in November 2019 found that Americans\u2019 sense of the impeachment story<\/a> connected closely with where they got their news. For instance, about half (52%) of Republicans who, among 30 outlets asked<\/a> about in that survey, got political news only from outlets with right-leaning audiences had heard a lot about Biden\u2019s efforts to remove a prosecutor in Ukraine in 2016. That is more than double the percentage of Democrats who got news only from outlets with left-leaning audiences (20%) who heard a lot. The gap is similar on Biden\u2019s son (Hunter Biden) work with a Ukraine-based natural gas company: 64% of these Republicans had heard a lot about this, compared with 33% of these Democrats. (Details of the news outlet groupings and audience profiles can be found here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"In<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These patterns also play out in views about Joe Biden\u2019s motivations. When asked, based on what they had heard in the news, whether they thought Biden called for the prosecutor\u2019s removal in order to advance a U.S. government position to reduce corruption in Ukraine or to protect his son from being investigated, 81% of Republicans who got news only from outlets with right-leaning audiences said he wanted to protect his son. Only 2% of these Republicans thought it was part of a U.S. anti-corruption campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats who got news only from outlets with left-leaning audiences were much more inclined to attribute Biden\u2019s actions to anti-corruption efforts (44%) than to a desire to protect his son (13%) \u2013 though that 44% is nearly matched by 42% who said they were not sure why Biden called for the prosecutor\u2019s removal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Republicans<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A similar gap is evident when it comes to views about Trump\u2019s role in the Ukraine affair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners who got their political news only from media outlets with right-leaning audiences (65%) said he did it to advance a U.S. policy to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Just 10% of these Republicans said Trump withheld the aid to help his reelection campaign (23% said they weren\u2019t sure).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among Republicans who got political news from a combination of outlet types \u2013 some of which have right-leaning audiences and some which have mixed and\/or left-leaning audiences \u2013 that gap narrows significantly. About half (46%) cited the advancement of U.S. policy, and 24% cited political gain. What\u2019s more, Republicans who did not get news from any sources with right-leaning audiences (but did get news from outlets with mixed and\/or left-leaning audiences) were more likely to say it was for political gain than to advance U.S. policy (34% vs. 21%), while 43% of Republicans in this group were not sure why he did it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, those who got political news only on outlets with left-leaning audiences and those who got news from outlets with left-leaning audiences plus others that have mixed and\/or right-leaning audiences responded similarly. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats in each of these groups (75% and 77%, respectively) said Trump withheld aid to help his reelection effort, while very small minorities of these Democrats (4% and 3%, respectively) cited reducing corruption as the president\u2019s intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The coronavirus pandemic<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\"Beliefs<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Several false claims related to the pandemic emerged over the course of the study. Not only did Republicans who turned to Trump for news about the pandemic express higher levels of belief in some of these claims (discussed in Chapter 2<\/a>), but those who only relied on outlets with right-leaning audiences also stood out in this way (from that same initial group of 30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One early claim, made without evidence, was that COVID-19 was created intentionally in a lab<\/a>. (Scientists have determined that the virus almost certainly came about naturally<\/a>, but some authorities, while saying it\u2019s unlikely, have not ruled out the possibility<\/a> that a lab played a role in its release.) When asked in March 2020 what they thought was the most likely way the current strain came about based on what they had seen or heard in the news, 40% of Republicans who only got news from outlets with right-leaning audiences<\/a> said COVID-19 was most likely created intentionally in a lab, far higher than the 28% of Republicans who got political news from outlets with both right-leaning and mixed audiences and 25% of Republicans who get political news only from outlets without right-leaning audiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among Democrats, those who got political news only from outlets with left-leaning audiences<\/a> stood out less. They were slightly more likely than Democrats whose news diet included outlets with both left-leaning and non-left-leaning audiences to say the virus strain came about naturally (61% and 55%, respectively). Instead, it was Democrats who didn\u2019t get news from any outlets with left-leaning audiences who stood apart. They were more likely to say COVID-19 was most likely created intentionally in a lab (26%), less likely than other Democrats to say it came about naturally (30%) and more likely to express uncertainty over the virus\u2019 origin (34%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Among<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In another area of false claims, Republicans who turned only to outlets with right-leaning audiences (according to whether they used eight sources in September 2020<\/a>) also stood apart. As of September 2020, they were more likely than other Republicans to believe a much-touted (but false) claim that young people are far less susceptible<\/a> to catching COVID-19 than older adults. (Young people have much lower rates of severe illness and death from COVID-19, but there is no strong evidence<\/a> that they are less likely to contract the virus.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking at media diet within party, there were only small differences in responses to this question among Democrats who used different major sources for political news. But among Republicans who used only outlets with right-leaning audiences (in this case among eight asked about), a majority (60%) said that minors under 18 are far less susceptible, compared with far fewer among Republicans who used a mixed media diet (32%) or only major sources without conservative-leaning audiences (30%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Election 2020<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\"Before<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The study also explored the impact of false and unproven claims made prior to Election Day about the potential of voter fraud tied to mail-in ballots<\/a> (though experts say there is almost no meaningful fraud associated with mail ballots<\/a>), and then after the fact, whether voter fraud was getting too much or too little attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September, fully 61% of Republicans who only cited Fox News and\/or talk radio shows as key news sources said fraud has been a major problem when mail-in ballots are used. That figure drops to 44% for Republicans who cited other outlets alongside Fox News and\/or talk radio as major sources, then down to about a quarter (23%) among Republicans who didn\u2019t rely on Fox News or talk radio (but selected at least one of the six other sources mentioned in the survey).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"After<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Democrats who cited only outlets with left-leaning audiences as key sources of political news were by far the most likely to say that voter fraud has not been a problem associated with mail-in ballots: 67% said this, compared with 43% of those who relied on some of these sources but also others. Democrats who didn\u2019t rely on any of the outlets with left-leaning audiences (or, in some cases, any of the eight major news sources mentioned in the survey) expressed greater uncertainty on this issue than other Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, after the election, Republicans who turned only to outlets with conservative-leaning audiences were much more likely than those who turned to other outlets to say allegations of voter fraud were getting \u201ctoo little attention.\u201d Just 6% of Republicans who only used Fox News or talk radio as major sources for post-election news said there had been too much attention paid to the fraud allegations, compared with 78% who said there had been too little attention. In the group that used other sources in addition to Fox News and\/or talk radio, 26% said there had been too much attention, while 45% said there had been too little. And Republicans who didn\u2019t rely on Fox News or talk radio at all and only relied on other sources for their post-election news were pretty evenly divided between the two responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Unprecedented national news events, a sharp and sometimes hostile political divide, and polarized news streams created a ripe environment for misinformation and made-up news in 2020. The truth surrounding the two intense, yearlong storylines \u2013 the coronavirus pandemic and the presidential election \u2013 was often a matter of dispute, whether due to genuine confusion or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":377,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"displayBylines":true,"footnotes":"","prc_watchers":[],"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[345,40,338,327,274],"tags":[],"bylines":[],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[],"research-teams":[527],"workflow-status":[],"class_list":["post-87694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-american-news-pathways-2020-project","category-election-2020","category-media-polarization","category-politics-media-1","category-politics-online","formats-report","research-teams-journalism"],"label":false,"post_parent":87714,"word_count":2596,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/","art_direction":{"A1":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=564&h=317&crop=1","width":564,"height":317,"caption":"","chartArt":false},"A2":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=268&h=151&crop=1","width":268,"height":151,"caption":"","chartArt":false},"A3":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=194&h=110&crop=1","width":194,"height":110,"caption":"","chartArt":false},"A4":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=268&h=151&crop=1","width":268,"height":151,"caption":"","chartArt":false},"XL":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=720&h=405&crop=1","width":720,"height":405,"caption":"","chartArt":false},"social":{"id":183003,"rawUrl":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_21.02.19_PathwaysLookback_featured.png?w=1200&h=628&crop=1","width":1200,"height":628,"caption":"","chartArt":false}},"_embeds":[],"watchers":[],"table_of_contents":[{"id":87714,"title":"How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in Review","slug":"how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-a-tumultuous-year-in-review","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-a-tumultuous-year-in-review\/","is_active":false},{"id":87708,"title":"1. About a quarter of Republicans, Democrats consistently turned only to news outlets whose audiences aligned with them politically in 2020","slug":"about-a-quarter-of-republicans-democrats-consistently-turned-only-to-news-outlets-whose-audiences-aligned-with-them-politically-in-2020","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/about-a-quarter-of-republicans-democrats-consistently-turned-only-to-news-outlets-whose-audiences-aligned-with-them-politically-in-2020\/","is_active":false},{"id":87701,"title":"2. Republicans who relied on Trump for news in 2020 diverged from others in GOP in views of COVID-19, election","slug":"republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election\/","is_active":false},{"id":87694,"title":"3. Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020","slug":"misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/","is_active":true},{"id":87688,"title":"4. Americans who mainly got news via social media knew less about politics and current events, heard more about some unproven stories","slug":"americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories\/","is_active":false},{"id":87673,"title":"5. Republicans\u2019 views on COVID-19 shifted over course of 2020; Democrats\u2019 hardly budged","slug":"republicans-views-on-covid-19-shifted-over-course-of-2020-democrats-hardly-budged","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/republicans-views-on-covid-19-shifted-over-course-of-2020-democrats-hardly-budged\/","is_active":false},{"id":87655,"title":"Appendix: Measuring news sources used during the 2020 presidential election","slug":"appendix-measuring-news-sources-used-during-the-2020-presidential-election","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/appendix-measuring-news-sources-used-during-the-2020-presidential-election\/","is_active":false},{"id":87664,"title":"Acknowledgments","slug":"acknowledgments-6-6","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/acknowledgments-6-6\/","is_active":false},{"id":87644,"title":"Methodology","slug":"how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-methodology","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-methodology\/","is_active":false}],"report_materials":[{"key":"103a8aff-77fc-4799-8575-c5e3d1563f20","type":"report","url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/02\/PJ_2021.02.22_News-Pathways-2020-Lookback_FINAL.pdf","label":"","icon":"","attachmentId":108601}],"report_pagination":{"current_post":{"id":87694,"title":"3. Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020","slug":"misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/","is_active":true,"page_num":4},"next_post":{"id":87688,"title":"4. Americans who mainly got news via social media knew less about politics and current events, heard more about some unproven stories","slug":"americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories\/","is_active":false,"page_num":5},"previous_post":{"id":87701,"title":"2. Republicans who relied on Trump for news in 2020 diverged from others in GOP in views of COVID-19, election","slug":"republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election\/","is_active":false,"page_num":3},"pagination_items":[{"id":87714,"title":"How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in Review","slug":"how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-a-tumultuous-year-in-review","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-a-tumultuous-year-in-review\/","is_active":false,"page_num":1},{"id":87708,"title":"1. About a quarter of Republicans, Democrats consistently turned only to news outlets whose audiences aligned with them politically in 2020","slug":"about-a-quarter-of-republicans-democrats-consistently-turned-only-to-news-outlets-whose-audiences-aligned-with-them-politically-in-2020","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/about-a-quarter-of-republicans-democrats-consistently-turned-only-to-news-outlets-whose-audiences-aligned-with-them-politically-in-2020\/","is_active":false,"page_num":2},{"id":87701,"title":"2. Republicans who relied on Trump for news in 2020 diverged from others in GOP in views of COVID-19, election","slug":"republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/republicans-who-relied-on-trump-for-news-in-2020-diverged-from-others-in-gop-in-views-of-covid-19-election\/","is_active":false,"page_num":3},{"id":87694,"title":"3. Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020","slug":"misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/misinformation-and-competing-views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020\/","is_active":true,"page_num":4},{"id":87688,"title":"4. Americans who mainly got news via social media knew less about politics and current events, heard more about some unproven stories","slug":"americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/americans-who-mainly-got-news-via-social-media-knew-less-about-politics-and-current-events-heard-more-about-some-unproven-stories\/","is_active":false,"page_num":5},{"id":87673,"title":"5. Republicans\u2019 views on COVID-19 shifted over course of 2020; Democrats\u2019 hardly budged","slug":"republicans-views-on-covid-19-shifted-over-course-of-2020-democrats-hardly-budged","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/republicans-views-on-covid-19-shifted-over-course-of-2020-democrats-hardly-budged\/","is_active":false,"page_num":6},{"id":87655,"title":"Appendix: Measuring news sources used during the 2020 presidential election","slug":"appendix-measuring-news-sources-used-during-the-2020-presidential-election","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/appendix-measuring-news-sources-used-during-the-2020-presidential-election\/","is_active":false,"page_num":7},{"id":87664,"title":"Acknowledgments","slug":"acknowledgments-6-6","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/acknowledgments-6-6\/","is_active":false,"page_num":8},{"id":87644,"title":"Methodology","slug":"how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-methodology","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/journalism\/2021\/02\/22\/how-americans-navigated-the-news-in-2020-methodology\/","is_active":false,"page_num":9}]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in Review","parent_id":87714},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020","description":"Unprecedented national news events, a sharp and sometimes hostile political divide, and polarized news streams created a ripe environment for misinformation and made-up news in 2020. The truth surrounding the…","og_title":"3. Misinformation and competing views of reality abounded throughout 2020","og_description":"","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":{"category":345,"research-teams":527},"custom_schema":[],"og_image":183003,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"prepublish_checks":{"prc-image-alt-text":{"status":"complete","message":"All images have alt text.","data":null},"prc-about-this-research":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add an \"About this research\" details block.","data":null},"prc-paragraph-count":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 32 paragraphs.","data":{"count":32}},"prc-internal-link":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 32 internal links.","data":{"count":32}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/377"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87694"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":183012,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87694\/revisions\/183012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=87694"},{"taxonomy":"workflow-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/workflow-status?post=87694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}