• Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study
    57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53112792]It's entirely possible that they just couldn't find an equal amount of fake news websites for both sides.[/QUOTE] My problem is that the titles/headlines imply that right-wingers are far more likely to share fake news, when what the study is basically saying is that a majority of fake news sites are right-leaning. The former is a forgone conclusion of the latter, but it only relegates the latter to pretty much a single sentence. I'd love a more in-depth analysis of where these sites fall - it'd probably come to the same conclusion, but still - instead of a tonne of words coming to an inevitable result. Sure, do the study anyway, that's what this stuff's all about, but meh. The kind of study that would come to the conclusion a fair few people seem to be inferring, is one that studies the propagation of neutral fake news, and if the right take the bait more frequently. I'm pretty sure I'm more getting annoyed at the way the study is getting reported than the study itself but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's also the issue with a site being classified as "fake news," but not every article on the site being "fake news." As far as I can tell, someone who spread a non fake news article from a site classified as a "fake news" site would still be counted in this study. For example, DrudgeReport is on the list of for "Junk news." The vast majority of articles on Drudgereport are regular news stories on normal websites. In fact, there are quite a few sites on there classified as "high" factual reporting (like National Review). It seems being editorially right wing was enough to be classified as "Junk News."
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113263]There's also the issue with a site being classified as "fake news," but not every article on the site being "fake news." As far as I can tell, someone who spread a non fake news article from a site classified as a "fake news" site would still be counted in this study. For example, DrudgeReport is on the list of for "Junk news." The vast majority of articles on Drudgereport are regular news stories on normal websites. In fact, there are a LOT of sites on there classified as "high" factual reporting (like National Review). It seems being editorially right wing was enough to be classified as "Junk News."[/QUOTE] Drudge is an aggregator. He aggregates both real stories, and tons of false ones. I get your point, but using them as an example is counter productive to that point.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53113285]Drudge is an aggregator. He aggregates both real stories, and tons of false ones. I get your point, but using them as an example is counter productive to that point.[/QUOTE] I really don't think it is. It strengthens my point. If you're taking every link to Drudge as an example of "junk news," (Their "example URL" is just "drudgereport.com) then you're probably going to get more false-positives than actual spreading of "junk news." [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] At the moment the headline stories are from: - CNBC - Wall Street Journal - Bloomberg Someone linking to drudge for those stories would be considered spreading "junk news."
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113290]I really don't think it is. It strengthens my point. If you're taking every link to Drudge as an example of "junk news," then you're probably going to get more false-positives than actual spreading of "junk news." [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] At the moment the headline stories are from: - CNBC - Wall Street Journal - Bloomburg Someone linking to drudge for those stories would be considered spreading "junk news."[/QUOTE] Because they bury real news in with tons of fake news giving credence and value when those stories are presented against the authority of real news
Drudge report also has awful clickbaity biased titles, even on the normal news stories.
they make up for it in web design talent, however
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113290]I really don't think it is. It strengthens my point. If you're taking every link to Drudge as an example of "junk news," (Their "example URL" is just "drudgereport.com) then you're probably going to get more false-positives than actual spreading of "junk news." [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] At the moment the headline stories are from: - CNBC - Wall Street Journal - Bloomberg Someone linking to drudge for those stories would be considered spreading "junk news."[/QUOTE] That's what fake news is, not just that EVERY ARTICLE EVER is fake, but that their journalistic integrity is so low that you can't reliably discern what is true or not from their articles.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53113349]That's what fake news is, not just that EVERY ARTICLE EVER is fake, but that their journalistic integrity is so low that you can't reliably discern what is true or not from their articles.[/QUOTE] Like HumanAbyss said, Drudge is a news aggregator. It doesn't have any original articles and has no authors. The vast majority of links are to mainstream news sources. If Drudge is an example of "junk news," then so is Google.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113438]Like HumanAbyss said, Drudge is a news aggregator. It doesn't have any original articles and has no authors. The vast majority of links are to mainstream news sources. If Drudge is an example of "junk news," then so is Google.[/QUOTE] I unironically agree. Google and Facebook news spreading misinformation because algorithms was and is a huge problem.
This is what it's like in the Czech Republic, but... A lot of older people (40+) here forward hoax and fake news emails to their friends and co-workers. Most of the time they are very easy to identify, but due to their heavy usage of exclamation marks, writing sentences in all caps and being quite colorful, the older folks tend to believe them and they feel compelled to share them with others since "the internet" told them that the email they had just received was the ultimate proof that the all the people they don't like are directly connected to the Illuminati and responsible for the refugee crisis. There was a news story about this and they even found one of the authors of the hoax messages. It was an old guy, in his late 60s or early 70s, and he claimed that he had sources for his emails all over the world and when asked if he could show some of the material he works with, he simply answered that [i]somebody[/i] had broken into his computer and deleted everything just a day before the interview and after being pressed further to identify some of his sources he got mad, told the interviewer that they should respect his opinions and said that he thought the interview would be about his opinions and not what kind of information he bases his emails on. Or when the old people have any sort of social media then they get to find fake news very easily and since they tend to keep their circle of friends fairly limited, nobody ever challenges the stuff they share. Younger people (18-40) tend to actively look up [i]alternative media[/i] and they usually stick to Russian propaganda sites, because such sites are politically incorrect, they talk about the world [i]the way it is[/i], they sometimes post articles about famous conspiracy theories and myths and from time to time they post funny pictures to break up all the articles about our bleak future where the US-backed islamic refugees rape our churches and burn our women while Putin would never allow such thing to happen in Russia. And even though they tend to have a lot more people in the friends list, the fake news articles they share are almost never challenged by anybody due to several reasons; a) their friends don't care - politics is boring, b) they partly agree with them but don't bother posting a comment, c) they fully agree, in which case they will give their post a thumbs up and/or a comment about how true it is. A lot of the time I find right wing people being the ones sharing fake news and left wingers the ones who either don't post anything or they sometimes post articles about analysis and debunking of fake news. All of this is from my personal experience, so feel free to take this with a truckload of salt, but holy shit is the information warfare getting worse? Sometimes I feel like the Czech national motto:"Truth prevails" is no longer applicable.
[QUOTE=butre;53112761]theres already a handy list of viable sites available [URL]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/[/URL] again, including pastebin is like calling imgur racist because there are a wyatt mann drawings hosted there[/QUOTE] Except not all the sites in left or right bias are fake news. Jacobin for example is very well written and sourced but is a left wing magazine. If you compare the number of 'mixed' factual report ratings from the left and right bias sections, right comes out on top. Further, the reasons for 'mixed' facts on the left bias are generally poor sourcing and editorial oversight, vs straight up conspiracy, lies and pseudoscience common in the questionable right sources
[QUOTE=Crumpet;53113466]Except not all the sites in left or right bias are fake news. Jacobin for example is very well written and sourced but is a left wing magazine. If you compare the number of 'mixed' factual report ratings from the left and right bias sections, right comes out on top my quite a margin. On top of that, the reasons for 'mixed' facts on the left bias are generally poor sourcing and editorial oversight, vs straight up conspiracy, lies and pseudoscience from the right sources[/QUOTE] The problem is that this study DOES include factually based, but right wing, sources as "junk news." [editline]6th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;53113448]I unironically agree. Google and Facebook news spreading misinformation because algorithms was and is a huge problem.[/QUOTE] That's fine, but it isn't really where this study was going.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113438]Like HumanAbyss said, Drudge is a news aggregator. It doesn't have any original articles and has no authors. The vast majority of links are to mainstream news sources. If Drudge is an example of "junk news," then so is Google.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't disagree. I don't think googles methods over the last few years have worked. I think they've helped exacerbate where we are currently.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;53113502]Google is not a news aggregator and Drudge is obviously junk, so I must ask you for another example. There is really no point to debate over an example as obvious as Drudge, but I will try it anyway. Almost all junk sources do quote real news occasionally, like from AP or other legit sources, and perhaps add their own commentary. What makes them junk is the aggregate score. How they usually fare. Not whether or not there is any "real" news on them. Drudge links to so many junk that it has become a vector, a spreader, of junk news itself.[/QUOTE] Drudge has a [url=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drudge-report/]mixed factual reporting rating[/url] anyways so that kinda blows sgman's point out of the water. Not that he really had a point to begin with since he's just splitting hairs and doing what he usually does by trying to ignore context and argue things that support his view from their strongest examples while showing the weakest examples for those that oppose them.
If the right wing in general were so dang factual I don't believe Trump would actually be president but alas.
The whole thing of right-leaning individuals sharing hoaxes and shit more regularly than their left-leaning equivalents is something I've seen a fair bit on my Facebook and Twitter feeds. There's just so much utter shit from the right-leaning "news" sites of the Internet compared to what I've ever seen of the left-leaning "news" sources. Shit, just look at the run up to the Brexit referendum, the sheer number of falsified stories being shared around about how Jukner or whatever boogeyman from Brussels of the week was going to impose laws on us ("HOW DARE THEY TAKE AWAY OUR BENDY BANANAS!!!") was fucking absurd. The ludicrous number of stories being shared that showed how "brutal" the ~~rapist refugees~~ who were "flooding" our country was mind boggling. But very little from left leaning sources was straight up falsified, sure there was exaggeration from the more dubious sources but when the Leave campaign were so fucking stupid you didn't need to falsify stuff. Just take a quick gander over at a fact checker like Snopes, a large number of the politically driven ones are obvious right-wing falsifications (blaming Soros, faking Soros quotes, fake Obama quotes, etc.) that get shared around on Facebook and the likes as if they were facts. And even if they aren't outright faking stuff, shitholes like Fox News exist to try and spin and redress events in any light that can at all be used to smear "the Other".
This information isn't particularly surprising. The US right has been characterized for years now by a rejection of quantifiable, verifiable truths and evidence-based views of reality in favour of a convenient fantasy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53113438]Like HumanAbyss said, Drudge is a news aggregator. It doesn't have any original articles and has no authors. The vast majority of links are to mainstream news sources. If Drudge is an example of "junk news," then so is Google.[/QUOTE] Google is more akin to a program than an actual news organization. Algorithmically serving people bad content because its what they like and agree with is different than a human editorial board intentionally misleading and lying to their readers, and that's why Drudge deserves to be "junk news" and Google doesn't.. Because they're not even close to being the same thing.
[QUOTE=archangel125;53113780]This information isn't particularly surprising. The US right has been characterized for years now by a rejection of quantifiable, verifiable truths and evidence-based views of reality in favour of a convenient fantasy.[/QUOTE] This. We live in a society that claims everybody is entitled to an opinion-- regardless of how uneducated, sheltered, or toxic that person may be-- and all opinions deserve equal consideration-- regardless of how ridiculous, clumsy, and destructive those opinions may be. It's a natural consequence that we've bred masses of idiots who (as you said) reject objective facts/evidence-based viewpoints and who shun learning and education in favor of their own ridiculous little fantasies concerning everything from politics and economics to science and religion. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Academic_anti-intellectualism]Anti-intellectualism has a [i]long[/i] history in the United States[/url], and it's going to destroy us if we don't put an end to it. Fake news is only one problem directly connected to it that needs to be confronted.
While ‘fake news’ is a problem, it’s not the only problem. Fake news might be most-influential on the political right, but many news sources on both the left and right engage in shameful sensationalism and bias in other forms eg selective reporting of stories, appeals to emotion, and omission of facts. Eg Fox News, CNN etc. I mean for god’s sake, even a moderator here posted a news article from CNN about a week ago. I’d argue that such sources are even [i]worse[/i] than ‘fake news’, because fake news can be easily fact-checked and called out, whereas biased sources often influence you subconsciously, and so are much harder to detect. Point is, caution of news sources shouldn’t stop at what’s fake and what’s not; even ‘truthful’ sources ought to be scrutinised.
everybody keeps blaming the filtering algorithms, not say maybe the very right biased agenda driven news sources such as fox, breitbart, ect ect who start the story. hell people make the choice to watch fox news because its somehow more truthy than CNN because they strike a much deeper emotional tone even though their content as of late is almost total fabrication.
The second the next dem president's fcc chairman is confirmed they need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. (the rule that made it was taken off the register in 2011, before Tom Wheeler was made fcc chairman, no idea why he didn't put it back)
[QUOTE=Sableye;53114671]everybody keeps blaming the filtering algorithms, not say maybe the very right biased agenda driven news sources such as fox, breitbart, ect ect who start the story. hell people make the choice to watch fox news because its somehow more truthy than CNN because they strike a much deeper emotional tone even though their content as of late is almost total fabrication.[/QUOTE] I honestly haven't watched either channel in recent months but last I checked they were both as shitty as each other
[QUOTE=Sableye;53114671]everybody keeps blaming the filtering algorithms, not say maybe the very right biased agenda driven news sources such as fox, breitbart, ect ect who start the story. hell people make the choice to watch fox news because its somehow more truthy than CNN because they strike a much deeper emotional tone even though their content as of late is almost total fabrication.[/QUOTE] All corporate news is conservative.
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53115478]The second the next dem president's fcc chairman is confirmed they need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. (the rule that made it was taken off the register in 2011, before Tom Wheeler was made fcc chairman, no idea why he didn't put it back)[/QUOTE] It's been gone since 87 tbh
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.