Polarization is a phenomenon characterizing modern societies, which can be measured using social scientific research tools. The word describes, metaphorically, the distance between opinions expressed in the public arena, regarding facts and the acceptable interpretation of facts. Political polarization can be measured as the ideological distance between members and supporters of political parties, which evolves over time. Strategic political communication increases polarization, so that parties gain more votes from radicalized supporters. For the society at large, strategically driven polarization may have adverse effects, causing a difficult time for communities in agreeing on a plan in crisis situations, since community members do not share the same definition of the crisis.

Media and communication research shows that not only politicians drive opinion polarization. This phenomenon is also an effect of mainstream media and of social media. More specifically, newsrooms with a strong bias in favour of or against a specific agenda, known as partisan media, are followed by electorate members with extreme views. The editorial line of partisan media, based on outrage and radical positioning on public issues, drives these electorate members even farther to the extremes.

In the case of social media, the distribution of content depends on algorithms that propose text, images and video to specific users that are related to their past online behaviour. The new content they are exposed to in the present is similar to the type of content they consumed, interacted with, and shared in the past. The effect is that social media users end up interacting mostly with other users sharing similar interests, an effect known as an echo chamber. The echo chamber hypothesis has been discussed in academia over the last two decades and maintains that the abundance of news and opinions, available online and offline, allows people to choose sources that echo (and consolidate) their political, social, or economic views. As a result, polarization increases between groups that hold different interests and thus participate in different echo chambers. For example, research has demonstrated that there is a polarization between followers of conspiracy theories and followers of science postings on Facebook.

Polarization may lead to ineffectiveness and dysfunction at different levels of government since it erodes trust in public figures and public institutions. Yet, longitudinal research on the voting of US elected political representatives in the House and in the Senate indicates that historically, the distance between liberal and conservative groups decreased dramatically in times of profound crises, for example during the Great Depression and the Second World War. More recently, research on partisan polarization in the UK during the evolution of the COVID-19 crisis showed that both Labour and Conservative voters evaluated in a similar manner scandals related to the government’s handling the health crisis. These research results indicate that polarization is a real phenomenon that may lead to dramatic effects on communities and individuals. Nevertheless, during periods of profound crisis, public official and citizens may start to interpret facts similarly, lowering the distance between the divergent positions on public issues and allowing for solutions to be found, to the benefit of society at large.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as: a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people; by Oxford Dictionary as: the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties, or “with a speculative meaning”: a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event.

With conceptual roots dating to roughly between 1870 and 1970, the term features as the central ingredient a group of conspirators acting in secret. In Latin “conspirare” literally signifies to breathe together, and was etymologically traced back to the 14^th century Anglo-French word conspirer; plotter is synonym to conspirator.

A scholastic definition refers to an explanation, either speculative or evidence-based, which attributes the causes of an event to a conspiracy or a plot, which not only describes or explains an alleged conspiracy but uncovers it and exposes some remarkable and hitherto unknown “truth” about the world.

In common law, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means, and is perhaps the most amorphous area in Anglo-American criminal law.

A practical definition is provided by the European Commission as the belief that certain events or situations are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent, and which has several key elements: an alleged, secret plot; a group of conspirators; “evidence” that seems to support the theory, which falsely suggests that nothing happens by accident and that there are no coincidences, that nothing is as it appears and everything is connected; it divides the world into good and bad and scapegoats people and groups.

Conspiracy theories deal with large-scale events, e.g. the AIDS epidemic, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, 9/11, COVID-19, the fake moon landing, or the existence of aliens kept secret by foreign governments. Apart from politics, scholars identify conspiracy theories linked to science, religion, and other aspects of daily life.

Authors consider conspiracy theories to be true, false, or neutral. The negative connotation is widespread, such that it seems almost oxymoronic that a conspiracy theory might be neutral. A conspiracy theory is considered neutral in so far as it does not imply wrong-doing or is unlikely to be true. References to “illegal” or “improper” actions that alter the course of events are often used loosely, as it depends on the person who defines what is legal or illegal. Other scholars would argue that it is necessary to add an additional condition, namely nefariousness: conspiracy theorists believe that powerful agents are conspiring to achieve nefarious aims and to orchestrate a cover-up.

A crucial aspect put forward by psychologists is that conspiracists’ thought processes are inherently self-enclosed, such that “contrary evidence” is re-interpreted as evidence for the theory. Authors argue that conspiratorial thinking is not necessarily truth-seeking behaviour but can often be a near-self destructive form of scepticism.

Cognitive bias is the label used for a decisional error, due to environmental or individual factors. Most people believe that they are always in a position to make the best decisions, using a minimum number of resources to reach the best of results. Still, depending on past experience, on communicational circumstances, on one’s own assessment of the status quo and of future outcomes, and on individual preferences or characteristics, individuals make questionable decisions under conditions of uncertainty and seem to act irrationally. Cognitive biases are crucial elements in misinformation and disinformation related processes and may lead to disastrous effects, such as xenophobia, discrimination and stigmatization or radical political movements against disease prevention and management.

Behavioural economics researchers use psychological experiments to study how cognitive biases interfere with decisional processes. The mind can be tricked by the manner in which a problem is formulated, if, for example, there is a focus on good or on bad consequences – a process called framing. The context of a discussion leads to certain connections – the priming effect. If an individual likes a source, because the source is considered beautiful, he or she may also trust what the source is saying, or at least treat the source with kindness and understanding – the halo effect. People tend to use heuristics in cognitive overloads: when they are tired, hungry, or stressed, they use intuitive reasoning to save time and effort. One heuristic is the illusion of truth, which elicits cognitive ease and may lead to rushed decisions, such as commenting favourably or sharing a piece of false information on social media. Some researchers consider cognitive biases to be a result of evolutionary forces: in the history of humanity, it has been advantageous to overestimate a threat and flee, rather than to confront a dangerous situation. Yet, for crucial public issues, specialists should help citizens in assessing reliable information sources and in using analytical thinking, as opposed to intuitive reasoning based on cognitive biases.

Images of TV correspondents standing in front of a landmark in a foreign capital or in a disaster area have almost become a part of popular culture. Yet, while permanent correspondents still play an important role within the structures of foreign reporting, the roles and job descriptions in international coverage have become more diversified in recent years.

Foreign correspondents – sometimes called international correspondents – might be employees of their newsrooms at home or work as freelancers serving various outlets. They may work in overseas news bureaus and even have staff to help them carry out their tasks, or they may be on their own with no major infrastructure provided by their employer. Both types of correspondents often rely on the support of fixers.

While some live abroad for years or even permanently, others stay for shorter periods only. Major news organizations may even have a rule limiting the period of time their correspondents can be sent to a particular country (i.e., not more than three years) to avoid them “going native”. This describes a (presumed) tendency that staying longer would attach correspondents too much to the culture of the foreign country, ultimately causing them to fail to provide adequate coverage for audiences at home. Others argue that, by contrast, living abroad permanently actually enables the international journalist to really understand a foreign culture, leading to more contextualized and less biased and domesticated coverage. In this regard, there have been calls to entrust at least some international reporting to foreign nationals “explaining” “their” countries to audiences abroad.

A large network of correspondents has for long time been a key performance marker of quality media in many Western countries. But newspapers in particular have faced shrinking budgets in recent years, meaning that only a few organizations can afford to maintain expensive networks of news bureaus. Also, innovations in technology such as the World Wide Web, as well as globalization processes, have arguably opened new opportunities for international reporting, making it easier to report events abroad from headquarters rather than from overseas. There is fear that these developments come at the expense of the long-term perspective provided by permanent correspondents, making foreign correspondents redundant. In some countries, only a few major newsrooms (or even none) are able to invest in permanent overseas correspondents. News media in these countries may therefore rely heavily on international news agencies.

Scholars John Maxwell Hamilton and Eric Jenner developed a typology of foreign correspondents. Alongside the traditional foreign correspondent, their model includes, amongst others, parachute journalists, which are sent abroad only temporarily when something happens. Foreign correspondents are foreign nationals serving as correspondents. In-house foreign correspondents cover stories from abroad from the news organization’s headquarters. Amateur correspondents have not gained the prominence expected by many in the early years of the World Wide Web. However, footage provided by citizens and information from social media do have their place in international reporting, especially when it comes to covering war and conflict zones.