Data shows who was reading “fake news” before 2016 US election
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Right. That's exactly what I mean. I feel compelled to check up on each of these sites in this "blacklist", just to decide how vigorous the charge of fake news really is. And that's before I can even look at the study and decide if that's meaningful. Even on Ars, which usually has very through articles, the charge of "fake news" means nothing. It's not enough for me to hear it from them. I've got to check up on it myself. What a PIA! Better to just stop using the term.
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
I know, ridiculous, isn't it?
This kind of retconning is essentially misinformation. And it shows the wilful ignorance (at best) or malicious deception (at worst) of today's NYT. And I know the editorial board are not ignorant, so....
This would not bother me that much if they left it in their rag. But no, they are trying to introduce into the CURRICULUM at public schools and such. That is why the NYT is the scariest "fake news" today - for most of my life it was seen as the "paper of record". A publication people repsected and used as the basis for their information. People believed what they read in the NYT - as did I. Nobody ever took a Breitbart or a Daily Beast article/agenda seriously, so it doesn't bother me too much how ignorant their agendas might be. And they were never using Breitbart/Daily Beast articles to sculpt the what kids learn in school. But the NYT can and IS trying to push this ignorant agenda into our schools - not just those who willingly still buy the NYT. That is why we should be more worried about NYT misinformation than that coming from the more fringe publications that nobody has ever taken seriously. They have power due to having been around for more than 150 years. Of course, due to the last few years of less than credible reporting, they will lose their power as it is connected to credibility. But they will do some damage on the way down, unfortunately.
Upvote
-7
(3
/
-10)
Aside from the NY Post making this claim in an op-ed, idk how true that is, but I haven't looked too hard. Even in that op-ed it sounded like a single classroom talked about it for a single day. That's hardly a curriculum.
I sincerely hope so, yet I'm not happy if it does. A truly great publication has taken a nosedive, and for once in the modern age it's not because of readership lost to the internet.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
This site is a libertarian site, so keep that in mind in terms of bias, but it has some facts in it that could be followed up on. And includes direct quotes from people implmenting it in schools. Here's the article:
https://reason.com/2020/01/28/1619-proj ... c-schools/
Upvote
-6
(2
/
-8)
It's worse than the occasional lie.
I think he often doesn't know if what he's saying is true or not! And, apparently doesn't care.
I've known a very very few other people who simply don't care about the truth. When they choose their words, it's *only* about what furthers their goals. The ones I know seem to sometimes believe their own BS and are also good at ignoring evidence. I've learned that it's pointless to argue with them.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Maybe it's just me but what defines credible anymore? I'm an independent in the states and while I use to rely heavily on nytimes and washingtonpost I've found myself at odds with how media portrays news. Ever since I was young I've always hoped for a independent non-bias media outlet (automation in terms of ML) that strictly just reported facts, but I'm finding that harder to find as I get older.
I've tried to extend my bubble in recent years by seeing both sides of a two party system in news but it's never really portrayed as news without influence. I'll go to fox news every once and a while just to see a portrayal of a 2002 news feed with mostly tabloid headlines. I visit washingtonpost and it's the same just looks a lot cleaner web wise. Now a days 50% of the articles are opinion titled ones. Nytimes now blocks you from visiting the internal source after x amount and requires memberships to read or forces you to use vpns or page rippers. I was under the impression of free press but there isn't really anything free about it anymore.
I understand that Fox news is conservative and washingtonpost and nytimes are liberal but these are supposed to be respectable informative sites, yet they all follow an agenda. I've even tried Canadian news such as Reuters and while it seems to be more fair it's littered with tabloid information as well.
I keep asking myself this question, ever since I was in middle school. What's real and what's fake? Now with it being overt with these Russian scandals, actual fake news, etc, it feels even more blurred to me. Perhaps it's always been that way and as I'm getting older I'm starting to become more aware of agendas.
I don't know, it's hard for me to read news now a days because it's become so polarizing but at the same time I want to be informed and educated. I mostly stick to tech sites now but even tech sites like wired (they endorsed a democrat) and ars do tend to lean more liberal outside tech breakdowns. I guess at the end of the day it feels like I have to choose a side and I don't want to be on a side I just want to consume in the middle and make up my own thoughts on the world. It feels as if every site uses trigger words to make you sway to a certain opinion without letting yourself think from just facts alone.
Maybe I'm alone in this thinking pattern but I personally don't think it's healthy to divide and conquer based off a two party system, and if we do have to live in a two party system which we do could we at least be a little more civil towards each other on opposing factions? Or is it just all out war no matter the cost?
I've tried to extend my bubble in recent years by seeing both sides of a two party system in news but it's never really portrayed as news without influence. I'll go to fox news every once and a while just to see a portrayal of a 2002 news feed with mostly tabloid headlines. I visit washingtonpost and it's the same just looks a lot cleaner web wise. Now a days 50% of the articles are opinion titled ones. Nytimes now blocks you from visiting the internal source after x amount and requires memberships to read or forces you to use vpns or page rippers. I was under the impression of free press but there isn't really anything free about it anymore.
I understand that Fox news is conservative and washingtonpost and nytimes are liberal but these are supposed to be respectable informative sites, yet they all follow an agenda. I've even tried Canadian news such as Reuters and while it seems to be more fair it's littered with tabloid information as well.
I keep asking myself this question, ever since I was in middle school. What's real and what's fake? Now with it being overt with these Russian scandals, actual fake news, etc, it feels even more blurred to me. Perhaps it's always been that way and as I'm getting older I'm starting to become more aware of agendas.
I don't know, it's hard for me to read news now a days because it's become so polarizing but at the same time I want to be informed and educated. I mostly stick to tech sites now but even tech sites like wired (they endorsed a democrat) and ars do tend to lean more liberal outside tech breakdowns. I guess at the end of the day it feels like I have to choose a side and I don't want to be on a side I just want to consume in the middle and make up my own thoughts on the world. It feels as if every site uses trigger words to make you sway to a certain opinion without letting yourself think from just facts alone.
Maybe I'm alone in this thinking pattern but I personally don't think it's healthy to divide and conquer based off a two party system, and if we do have to live in a two party system which we do could we at least be a little more civil towards each other on opposing factions? Or is it just all out war no matter the cost?
Upvote
-13
(1
/
-14)
Use your brain is the best advice. If something sounds way too weird to be truth it usually is and there usually is someone who benefits. Getting "news" from many different outlets with different agendas (they all have them including the so call fact checkers) gives you a chance to estimate some kind of reality.
However, that takes excessive amount of time and effort so most people simply chose a camp and pretend that anything out of their camp is God's gospel. Which is why humanity is probably going extinct soon and honestly it's not like we don't deserve it.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
It is not a coincidence that certain political entities want you to wholesale dismiss the media. Don't fall into their trap.
Yes, the two publications you have listed are somewhat left-leaning. But they are on the whole much more factual in their reporting than, for example, Fox News.
Do some Googling and see how fact checkers have rated the different media. One example: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com.
Washington Post: These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
NY Times: These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Fox News: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes
Factual Reporting: MIXED
CNN: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Good questions to ask when you're assessing a news outlet or other source:
- When they're talking about another source, do they provide that source? If so, click through to it. Do they accurately depict its contents?
- When they make significant factual errors and are caught out on it, do they issue a correction?
- Has there been any public exposure of their editorial practices? If so, do they enforce any sort of quality standards on their journalists? Do they require their journalists to avoid or to push specific subject matter?
- When an article that they've published triggers a strong emotional response, take that as a sign that you're vulnerable to manipulation on that subject. Even if you agree with the story and its details, spend extra time looking into it and reviewing multiple sources and explanations. Don't be afraid to sift through Wikipedia pages for details. Did the story merit the original response, and if not, was that response probably the intent?
- What's the general tone of their front page? Do most of the headlines look to be geared at a strong emotional response, particularly panic, fear, outrage, or suspicion?
- Do they put SCARY WORDS in ALL CAPS in their article titles?
None of these is enough to judge a website on their own (except maybe the last two) and a lot of them take a ton of work, but applying them across a large enough sample from a site can give you a pretty solid idea of whether or not it's credible without having to rely on just some other (potentially bad) source.
- When they're talking about another source, do they provide that source? If so, click through to it. Do they accurately depict its contents?
- When they make significant factual errors and are caught out on it, do they issue a correction?
- Has there been any public exposure of their editorial practices? If so, do they enforce any sort of quality standards on their journalists? Do they require their journalists to avoid or to push specific subject matter?
- When an article that they've published triggers a strong emotional response, take that as a sign that you're vulnerable to manipulation on that subject. Even if you agree with the story and its details, spend extra time looking into it and reviewing multiple sources and explanations. Don't be afraid to sift through Wikipedia pages for details. Did the story merit the original response, and if not, was that response probably the intent?
- What's the general tone of their front page? Do most of the headlines look to be geared at a strong emotional response, particularly panic, fear, outrage, or suspicion?
- Do they put SCARY WORDS in ALL CAPS in their article titles?
None of these is enough to judge a website on their own (except maybe the last two) and a lot of them take a ton of work, but applying them across a large enough sample from a site can give you a pretty solid idea of whether or not it's credible without having to rely on just some other (potentially bad) source.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
By the way he talks, I think it's an age thing. Some old guys get like that. It's a weird phase between capacities, with normal ability on one end and total elderly infirmity on the other. They'll surprise you with accomplishments occasionally (like, how did he pull that off?), and the next day pull a major gaff. Then one day, grandpa gets lost on his way to the grocery, or runs over a pedestrian, or orders a missile strike on an ally. Then we gotta sit down, have the talk, take the car keys ... it's a whole thing.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Thanks for the link to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
I like to check the BBC in addition to the U.S. sites. I keep meaning to look at Al Jazeera, but never quite get there. Here's what MediaBiasFactCheck.com has to say about those two:
BBC: Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left.
Factual Reporting: HIGH for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information.
Al Jazeera: Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left.
Factual Reporting: MIXED due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
In the US, more or less any non-extreme-Right "mainstream" source (i.e. one that's independent of the Fox-Breitbart echo chamber) one will find to adhere pretty well to facts and journalistic integrity; they lack a hardcore orthodoxy following and thus are forced to constrain themselves to the real world or else find themselves losing relevance and viewership.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
More or less, but there's still issues. Cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC often overemphasize controversy and oversimplify stories, and the rush to hit stories while they're hot sometimes means that errors slip in. Many of the more traditional outlets are obsessed with appearing impartial, and that leads to some pretty embarrassing cases of passive voice and false balance. All the same, both tend to at least try to verify their facts and check their sources, something that internet blogs like Breitbart pretty demonstrably don't care to do.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
There is an implicit assumption in this article that somehow one is complicit with the "fake news" merely by reading it. But I read a lot of things I disagree with every day, including this article. That is how I maintain a circumspect point of view. Even wing nut web sites get it right every now and then.
The fact that someone who reads the news voraciously would read a few kook sites as well does not infer a damned thing. It does not imply that they would relay those opinions to others.
And as for how they get there, what difference does it make? Yes, perhaps it did come from a search engine or social media. So what? Do they have an obligation to validate what they return for my search terms? More to the point, if my niece is citing something from a fringey web site, is it a crime for me to visit that web site to see what she's ranting about?
No, the study this article talks about talks about is practically Orwellian. This article views web histories of an unknown sample (didn't say how it was collected), of people who dare to read something that isn't party line diktat. Yeah, let's figure out which method they used to get there so that we can squelch it.
The implied purpose of this study is disgusting beyond belief. Why don't you grow up and THINK FOR YOURSELVES?
The fact that someone who reads the news voraciously would read a few kook sites as well does not infer a damned thing. It does not imply that they would relay those opinions to others.
And as for how they get there, what difference does it make? Yes, perhaps it did come from a search engine or social media. So what? Do they have an obligation to validate what they return for my search terms? More to the point, if my niece is citing something from a fringey web site, is it a crime for me to visit that web site to see what she's ranting about?
No, the study this article talks about talks about is practically Orwellian. This article views web histories of an unknown sample (didn't say how it was collected), of people who dare to read something that isn't party line diktat. Yeah, let's figure out which method they used to get there so that we can squelch it.
The implied purpose of this study is disgusting beyond belief. Why don't you grow up and THINK FOR YOURSELVES?
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
I think that there is a major flaw in the study. Many people are significantly influenced by an article based solely on its headline. Many people do not even read the article because they assume that they know what it’s about based on the headline, and share an article in social media based solely on its headline; this study does not capture this behavior, much less quantify it. It is not clear whether where one stands on the political spectrum is correlated with the degree to which a one will actually read the article, as opposed to just the headline. Many right wing “news" outlets specifically design their headlines to engender anger, not to inform, basically using their headlines to create a meme that will go viral.
Those who actually go to read the article may well be people who saw a social media post from a person with a very different perspective and when they read they are more likely to do fact checking precisely because they do not believe the headline represents the truth; this study does not capture or quantify this type of behavior either.
I do not believe that this study really advances understanding of the impact of "junk news" or the type of person who is most influenced by “junk news“; I think it merely confirms what many people on the left already believe.
Those who actually go to read the article may well be people who saw a social media post from a person with a very different perspective and when they read they are more likely to do fact checking precisely because they do not believe the headline represents the truth; this study does not capture or quantify this type of behavior either.
I do not believe that this study really advances understanding of the impact of "junk news" or the type of person who is most influenced by “junk news“; I think it merely confirms what many people on the left already believe.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16- ... -trump-won
Which news outlets? The Guardian, New York Magazine, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Time, Slate, Vox, Washington Post, and the Associated Press figure prominently in the reporting and distribution of these fake news stories.
Here is just one sample: fake news on Betsy DeVos:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16- ... -trump-won
Which news outlets? The Guardian, New York Magazine, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Time, Slate, Vox, Washington Post, and the Associated Press figure prominently in the reporting and distribution of these fake news stories.
Here is just one sample: fake news on Betsy DeVos:
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
Pew Research: For some, the satiric 'Colbert Report' is a trusted source of political news
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... tical-news
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... tical-news
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Do a Google search like:
"Betsy DeVos" "Guns" "Schools" "grizzlies" site:cnn.com
You will find that her position is described in context, including her deferring to state governments.
So what's your problem?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Well, let's take a look at some of these.
For the first one, no major outlet appears to have been involved. Someone who's written for The Guardian tweeted about rumors according to this article (their links don't work), but it was never published in any of the outlets that you mentioned. They also complain about how Snopes labeled it "unconfirmed" rather than "false" despite the fact that... it's unconfirmed, not proven false.
The second one's about a New York Magazine article that... accurately reports the fact that a team of computer scientists and election lawyers were advising Clinton to challenge election results in several swing states. The article even explicitly states that the group hadn't found evidence of hacking or manipulation. They also make it clear (particularly in the Medium post from the updated link) that their point isn't "these elections were hacked", it's "this is suspicious and they should review it to make sure". Not fake news.
The third one... oh hey, they actually got one right. Politico fucked up a story, though they did offer a later correction. Unfortunately, The Federalist kind of undermines their credibility anyways by claiming that the New York Daily News is the New York Post, doing literally exactly what Politico did by confusing one entity for another (and, even better, somehow managing to do it despite the Daily News having their name at the top of the page). Still, I'll grant that that's one for Politico.
The fourth one's... just kind of stupid. CNN reported on a tweet that Nancy Sinatra made. Sinatra deleted the tweet and then declared that CNN was lying. CNN updated the story to... report exactly that, and put a notice at the top to indicate that the story was updated. The Federalist omits all of this, using Breitbart as a source to show that CNN lied... but even Breitbart's article flatly acknowledges that the tweet existed but was deleted by Sinatra.
So that's one instead out of four, with that one receiving a correction and applying to only one of the outlets on your list. Should I keep going, or is the rest of this going to be on par with the first set (and the rest of The Federalist's bullshit)?
EDIT: Got curious on the ride to work so I peeked ahead. The fifth one is a complaint about the NYT calling the purge of all climate change references from the White House a purge. It... literally was. Like, by definition. It's even become more obvious over time that the term was correct, as the current administration has been scrubbing references to climate change across the sites that they control.
So I guess that answers my question.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Care to explain how President Trump made 16,241 false or misleading claims in his first three years?
Allow me to be unimpressed with the 16 stories the Federalist claims are fake.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
