Data shows who was reading “fake news” before 2016 US election

Study tracked browser history of 2,500 Americans.

Read the whole story

 

[fredsbend]

So, they found people dumb enough to install malware? Then considered their news diet as representative?

I'm being a bit facetious, but really, isn't there some serious selection bias here?

 

[fredsbend]

I don't remember progressives/Democrats being such hardnoses about Russia when President Reagan was winning the Cold War. In fact they were purring pussycats towards Russia, or, in the case of Senator Ted Kennedy, energetically backstabbing his policy.

Because politicians are duplicitous ass biscuits.

 

[fredsbend]

The 1619 Project has been sharply criticized by leading American historians, most notably, historian of the American Revolution Gordon Wood and Civil War experts Richard Carwardine and James McPherson. McPherson stated in an interview that he was "disturbed" by the project's "unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history."

The 1619 Project - Critical Response - Wikipedia

It's been criticized enough by legitimate historians that it has its own massive critical response section on wikipedia. That quote is just the first few sentences. The lack of objectivity has been further criticized by fellow journalists. From a big NYT fan, it has been sorely disappointing to see them head in this direction.

 

[fredsbend]

Based on the conclusion, people on all sides of the aisle encounter worthless news sources, but overall they keep reading from a majority of credible sources. So maybe "fake news" doesn't cause significant damage, because plenty of credible outlets are available that overshadow it? (Not defending fake news, but just curious if its impact is less than we think.)

What isn't explicitly stated but will be obvious to anyone who has a opinion that deviates from groupthink, fake news is defined as "opinions we in mainstream media dislike".

Most people are moderate, at least in the USA, which means they have some ideas that lean left and some that lean right and they end up in the middle. In the last 3 years, the stupid that's lurked just under the surface of mainstream media has been put on full display and they've gone 'full retard' to quote a most epic movie. Everyone knows you never go full retard.

The idea that rational, sane people might hold conservative views from time to time is never considered a reasonable explanation. The assumption is that only dupes would willingly embrace any conservative or even moderate position and only Russia would be interested in propagating conservative ideas, as opposed to, let's say, Marxist ideas. 'Cause you know, everyone knows how much Russians hate Marxist ideology.

No. Fake news is information that pretends to be news, but is actually not related to reality. That's it.

All your nonsensical blabbering about "opinions" or "dislike" or "conservative" has nothing to do with anything.

You can't really be suggesting that charges of "fake news" aren't, more often than not, just plain partisan disagreement?

 

[fredsbend]

Based on the conclusion, people on all sides of the aisle encounter worthless news sources, but overall they keep reading from a majority of credible sources. So maybe "fake news" doesn't cause significant damage, because plenty of credible outlets are available that overshadow it? (Not defending fake news, but just curious if its impact is less than we think.)

What isn't explicitly stated but will be obvious to anyone who has a opinion that deviates from groupthink, fake news is defined as "opinions we in mainstream media dislike".

Most people are moderate, at least in the USA, which means they have some ideas that lean left and some that lean right and they end up in the middle. In the last 3 years, the stupid that's lurked just under the surface of mainstream media has been put on full display and they've gone 'full retard' to quote a most epic movie. Everyone knows you never go full retard.

The idea that rational, sane people might hold conservative views from time to time is never considered a reasonable explanation. The assumption is that only dupes would willingly embrace any conservative or even moderate position and only Russia would be interested in propagating conservative ideas, as opposed to, let's say, Marxist ideas. 'Cause you know, everyone knows how much Russians hate Marxist ideology.

No. Fake news is information that pretends to be news, but is actually not related to reality. That's it.

All your nonsensical blabbering about "opinions" or "dislike" or "conservative" has nothing to do with anything.

You can't really be suggesting that charges of "fake news" aren't, more often than not, just plain partisan disagreement?

I don't know what you mean with "partisan", but reality doesn't care what is charged, only what is.

I mean that hearing an article is fake news is almost as meaningful as hearing its author is a nazi.

 

[fredsbend]

Hearing it and having proof for it are two different things.

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.

 

[fredsbend]

The 1619 Project - Critical Response - Wikipedia

It's been criticized enough by legitimate historians that it has its own massive critical response section on wikipedia. That quote is just the first few sentences. The lack of objectivity has been further criticized by fellow journalists. From a big NYT fan, it has been sorely disappointing to see them head in this direction.

they are trying to introduce into the CURRICULUM at public schools and such. That is why the NYT is the scariest "fake news" today -

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.

Of course, due to the last few years of less than credible reporting, they will lose their power as it is connected to credibility.

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.

 

[fredsbend]

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.

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.