Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake News more popular on the Right

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fake News more popular on the Right

    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...sity-of-oxford
    "The study, from the university’s “computational propaganda project”, looked at the most significant sources of “junk news” shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why.
    “On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”

  • #2
    You know I think if I got to define what is and isn't "fake news" like the authors of this study I could make exactly the opposite claim. (Especially having been forced to listen to very-left-wing members of my family and what they quote as "proof" for their various conspiracy theories).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
      (Especially having been forced to listen to very-left-wing members of my family and what they quote as "proof" for their various conspiracy theories).
      you mean there is not a nazi base in the antarctic

      Comment


      • #4
        Well in my case I got "Greenpeace is listed as terrorist organisation by the CIA" which they claimed was based on a listing on the CIA website. Except that I'd frequently been to that very same website (the world Factbook is quite useful from time to time) and knew that there was no such listing of "terrorist organisations" on it. Which I was then told was wrong and that it was there and when I pulled out my laptop and showed otherwise I was told that I was still wrong and that they must have only just removed that section.

        Frankly I nearly strained my eyesight from rolling my eyes so hard.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why yes, the right buys into a lot of crazy nonsense. But so does the left, only their fake news are not called that. They're called "accidental canards" or "negligent coverage". The very imbalance in public discourse is underlined by the fact that the term "fake news" was coined and is exclusively used for stuff with a right-wing motivation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Both sides are fools. And who suffers? Those of us in the middle.

            Relentless shitposting solves no crimes

            Comment


            • #7
              Thumbs up to muck.

              We generally associate fake news with the far-right, nazi propaganda, ze jooos back stabbed Germany and forget about Stalin smart ways to make people ''vanishes'' from photograph. Know what I mean?

              Easy to fool the masses. People are gullible.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                You know I think if I got to define what is and isn't "fake news" like the authors of this study I could make exactly the opposite claim. (Especially having been forced to listen to very-left-wing members of my family and what they quote as "proof" for their various conspiracy theories).
                Look at the list starting on page 6.

                http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-conte...Supplement.pdf

                Not "junk news" in your opinion?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marsch View Post

                  Look at the list starting on page 6.

                  http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-conte...Supplement.pdf

                  Not "junk news" in your opinion?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marsch View Post

                    Look at the list starting on page 6.

                    http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-conte...Supplement.pdf

                    Not "junk news" in your opinion?
                    Weird... there is no buzzfeed, no Salon, no everydayfeminism, no occupydemocrat, no theyoungturks, no theroots, etc...

                    As a matter of fact, no "liberal" media.



                    Gotta love the hypocrisy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now, I can only address this subject from my country's perspective but since trends and procedures are virtually the same in all the Western hemisphere we're free to guess the situation is not too different in other countries nor has changed ever since: Back in 2012, a Swiss magazine for journalism revealed that of Germany's journalists

                      about
                      33.8% said they supported the Greens (a left-wing, environmentalist party),
                      20.7% supported the Social Democrats (center-left),
                      7.6% supported the Christian Democrats (who used to be center-right back in the day) and
                      6.9% supported the Free Democrats (right-wing).

                      (missing: no alignment)

                      Mind you, in 2012 the nation's sovereign a.k.a. the people had just elected a government of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats with 48.8% of all votes, and were about to vote 52.3% center-right/right a year later. Had only the journalists voted the people's elected government would've barely made 14.5%. In other word's there's a vast gap between those who make the news and those who read the news. And of course does their journalistic work reflect their personal world view (they're only human after all), and of course do they sense that gap or, from their point of view, they sense how much their readers lag behind: Cue to the moral pointing finger.

                      In the light of this, is anyone genuinely surprised there's an ever-growing number of people who distrust the media; and has anybody a legitimate reason to begrudge them their views?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Some are indeed junk. I note that none of them seem to be left-wing junk. Which makes me suspect just how the list was put together.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                          Some are indeed junk. I note that none of them seem to be left-wing junk. Which makes me suspect just how the list was put together.
                          The same the "piss-gate" dossier was put together.

                          Unbiased, serious, competent, ethical journalism.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by breki View Post
                            But it's only half past 11, dad!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I remember the White House press corp under Obama had not one single registered Republican out of the 80 odd journalists there licking Obamas balls every day. The distrust of the media on the right is YUGE! Fortunately, there are options. I can't remember the last time I watched CNN, MSNBC or any of the big networks unless it was an airport or having my truck worked on. The Trump hatred and bias is just ...over the top. This NY Times reporter (aka "budgie") is a great example.


                              NY Times reporter called Trump 'racist,' said RNC staffers were 'complicit'
                              Weeks before the convention, an RNC staff member called Martin one night to challenge one of his stories. The reporter shot back, “You’re a racist and a fascist; Donald Trump is a racist and a fascist, we all know it, and you are complicit. By supporting him you’re all culpable. During the fall campaign, the party staffer called him again, and Martin accused the staffer—and everyone working on Trump’s behalf—of supporting a racist campaign and a racist candidate.
                              This time the staffer was distraught and relayed the conversation to the boss, Sean Spicer. Spicer called a top Times editor and unloaded about Martin’s behavior. The editor thanked Spicer for the information.
                              Half an hour later, Martin called Spicer and demanded: “How dare you go behind my back? What are you doing calling one of my editors?”
                              “Excuse me,” Spicer replied, “you call one of my people and say this and I don’t have a right to complain?”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X