Academic Study About Fake News - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14876201
The Abstract to the article wrote:Though some warnings about online “echo chambers” have been hyperbolic, tendencies toward selective exposure to politically congenial content are likely to extend to misinformation and to be exacerbated by social media platforms. We test this prediction using data on the factually dubious articles known as “fake news.” Using unique data combining survey responses with individual-level web tra c histories, we estimate that approximately 1 in 4 Americans visited a fake news website from October 7-November 14, 2016. Trump supporters visited the most fake news websites, which were overwhelmingly pro-Trump. However, fake news consumption was heavily concentrated among a small group — almost 6 in 10 visits to fake news websites came from the 10% of people with the most conservative online information diets. We also find that Facebook was a key vector of exposure to fake news and that fact-checks of fake news almost never reached its consumers.


The much more readable summary on mashable wrote:A new study confirms your worst fears about fake news in the U.S. — it's widespread, skews pro-Trump, and is mostly consumed by your conservative uncle.

Oh, and fact checking hasn't worked at all.

A group of academic researchers have published what they are calling the first scientific, data-based study of Americans’ exposure to fake news in the month surrounding the 2016 U.S. election.

Combining survey responses and browsing histories of a representative sample of 2,525 Americans, the researchers found that one in four news consumers visited a fake news between Oct. 7 and Nov. 14, 2017.

The report also studied the content itself. Fake news skewed almost entirely pro-Trump, and was consumed most voraciously by the most politically conservative Americans, according to the researchers.

The researchers noted that fake news did have an impact, with a sizable portion of conservative Americans over 60 consuming around one fake news story per day during the time period studied.

"These results contribute to the ongoing debate about the problem of 'filter bubbles' by showing that the 'echo chamber' is deep (33.16 articles from fake news websites on average) but narrow (the group consuming so much fake news represents only 10% of the public)," wrote the study's authors.

Even worse, the survey showed that attempts to counter fake news aren't working. Fact-checking websites like Snopes or PolitiFact are failing to reach fake news readers. The study's authors found that literally none of people who read a fake news article read the corresponding de-bunk from a fact checking site.

Entitled "Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign," political scientists Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College, Andrew Guess of Princeton University, and Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter published the study on Dec. 20, 2016.

They define “fake news” as “factually dubious for-profit articles” and used a previously published study that classified fake news websites and articles to inform their own categorization. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump regularly uses the term “fake news” to describe unfavorable coverage of his administration from legitimate news outlets.

Though the study’s data was gathered from October 7 - November 14 in 2016, the study comes at a time when fake news continues to dominate conversation at the highest levels of the media.

The New York Times’ new publisher A. G. Sulzberger wrote in a letter to readers Monday that “misinformation is rising and trust in the media is declining as technology platforms elevate clickbait, rumor and propaganda over real journalism, and politicians jockey for advantage by inflaming suspicion of the press. Growing polarization is jeopardizing even the foundational assumption of common truths, the stuff that binds a society together.”

Social media companies, most notably Facebook, continue to face scrutiny and censure for their role in spreading misinformation.



The study aims to answer questions about specifically who consumes fake news, the political bent of the news, and the extent of its dissemination. But it also examines the role of social media and whether fact checking reaches its intended readers.

Facebook plays the largest role in leading readers to and disseminating fake news, and fact checking articles almost always fail to reach consumers of fake news. It does not tackle how fake news affected political perceptions or behavior, like voting.

Overall, the key findings of the study were:

27.4 percent of Americans over the age of 18 - which translates to more than 65 million people - visited a pro-Trump or pro-Clinton fake news website during the time surveyed.

Fake news comprised 2.6 percent of all hard news consumed during that period.

Fake news skews conservative: of the average 5.4 fake news articles readers consumed, 5 were pro-Trump.

There are more conservative fake news viewers than liberal ones: 65.9 percent of the 10 percent most conservative voters visited at least one pro-Trump fake news site.

40 percent of Trump supporters and 15 percent of Clinton supporters visited at least one fake news article.

Americans 60 years and older read the most fake news.

People were more likely to visit Facebook immediately prior to reading a fake news article than any other social media site, including Twitter, and even Google and GMail.

Only half of the people who had visited a fake news website had also visited a fact-checking site.

None of the fake news readers saw a fact check article specifically debunking a piece of fake news they had consumed
.


This seems to confirm my anecdotal observations on POFO.
#14876354
ness31 wrote:I have been waiting for a definitive definition of fake news for some time, but “factually dubious for-profit articles” don’t quite do it for me :hmm:


Dartmouth is in the Ivy League and subsequently a private university; which is different than a for-profit university.

Even if we are to say that capitalism makes all things, essentially, for-profit, I can assure you that Dartmouth doesn't need whatever money you imagine it's making by publishing this article in some kind of conspiracy.
#14876449
ness31 wrote:What? No TIG, I was quoting from the mashable summary you posted.

I’d like to read a good definition of fake news, but the one provided in the summary was a bit clunky..that’s all ;)

Fake news is false political information pushed as real news by the liberal MSM against conservatives and especially against Donald Trump at the present time.
#14876452
Hindsite wrote:Fake news is false political information pushed as real news by the liberal MSM against conservatives and especially against Donald Trump at the present time.
A convenient lie you keep telling yourself. Your ability to lie to yourself is almost as impressive as your ability to believe your own lies.

You didn't read anything from the original article. You're one of those people who read a propaganda piece and then don't fact check. The fake news tends to be PRO-Trump, but then I don't expect you to actually read anything that doesn't adhere to your confirmation bias.

Fake news skews conservative: of the average 5.4 fake news articles readers consumed, 5 were pro-Trump. -From the article.

Also, unsurprising:
Americans 60 years and older read the most fake news.

Fake news is identified as being very uncommon, as well, and primarily pro-Conservative, when it is appearing.
#14876458
Godstud wrote:A convenient lie you keep telling yourself. Your ability to lie to yourself is almost as impressive as your ability to believe your own lies.

You didn't read anything from the original article. You're one of those people who read a propaganda piece and then don't fact check. The fake news tends to be PRO-Trump, but then I don't expect you to actually read anything that doesn't adhere to your confirmation bias.

Fake news skews conservative: of the average 5.4 fake news articles readers consumed, 5 were pro-Trump. -From the article.

Also, unsurprising:
Americans 60 years and older read the most fake news.

Fake news is identified as being very uncommon, as well, and primarily pro-Conservative, when it is appearing.

You don't realize that the article is fake news. Fake news is bias news against conservatives and Donald Trump. CNN and MSNBC reports are over 90% negative to Donald Trump. One report had CNN at 97% negative against Donald trump due to their hatred and bias.
#14876462
You spread fake news every time you make a post. You dismiss anything and everything that doesn't agree with your fucked up ideology of racism, hatred, and misogyny. Go back to your cave, troll.
#14876466
Godstud wrote:You spread fake news every time you make a post. You dismiss anything and everything that doesn't agree with your fucked up ideology of racism, hatred, and misogyny. Go back to your cave, troll.

That ideology is used by the left-wing nut jobs, not me. Praise the Lord.
#14876519
Hindsite says, "I know you are, but what am I!".

Infantile. Grow up, old man.

You are dismissing all news as being fake, and have nothing to back up this claim with, aside from a "feeling". :knife:
#14876551
Note: As long as you attack the ideology or argument instead of the individual, you are fine.

This being said, it's not particularly interesting that Hindsite, like most rightwingers, just make up definitions for words that hurt their feelings.

We can probably move on from this and instead ask questions about why this is the case; or what implications this has for foreign interference; or something of that nature.
#14877325
The Immortal Goon wrote:Note: As long as you attack the ideology or argument instead of the individual, you are fine.

This being said, it's not particularly interesting that Hindsite, like most rightwingers, just make up definitions for words that hurt their feelings.

We can probably move on from this and instead ask questions about why this is the case; or what implications this has for foreign interference; or something of that nature.

Not really, since there was no foreign interference.
#14877327
Yes, @Hindsite, but you are neither a reliable or good news source. You spout your opinions as if they are facts. They are not. What you say is the very definition of fake news.
#14877383
Godstud wrote:Yes, @Hindsite, but you are neither a reliable or good news source. You spout your opinions as if they are facts. They are not. What you say is the very definition of fake news.

You are just jealous.

@Crantag , & @Truth To Power , Thank you g[…]

The trouble with having sex before marriage is yo[…]

On intelligence and national security matters it[…]

Better to having mobe rule by the Democrats. Dem[…]