Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thing, says study

[smilesammich 10,727]

Oxford Internet Institute A multidisciplinary research and teaching department of the University of Oxford, dedicated to the social science of the Internet.

 

maybe the project can answer the questions you all have.

[jg121783 3,915]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

since you've got such an opinion on the study and how they classified what, etc..i assume you've read the study for yourself?

I read the article which doesn't clarify what news sources are considered to be fake news or the facts that back up the assertion that they are fake news. I attempted to view the actual study but it appears to be a dead link. So unless you can show me how a news network is classified as fake news and the facts backing up that classification for each news source this does not qualify as a study but rather a series of opinions.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, jg121783 said:

I read the article which doesn't clarify what news sources are considered to be fake news or the facts that back up the assertion that they are fake news. I attempted to view the actual study but it appears to be a dead link. So unless you can show me how a news network is classified as fake news and the facts backing up that classification for each news source this does not qualify as a study but rather a series of opinions.

that's why i posted the link to the project itself. it's not a dead link. i just clicked through.

[jg121783 3,915]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

that's why i posted the link to the project itself. it's not a dead link. i just clicked through.

I was able to get the pdf and looked over it. They do define 5 criteria for what fake news in their view is and all 5 of those criteria are subjective and can be applied differently based on personal bias and opinion. What I didn't find was a list of news sources they consider to be fake news or the facts supporting the assertion that they are in fact fake news. As I said this is not a study but rather a report on multiple personal opinions.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, jg121783 said:

I was able to get the pdf and looked over it. They do define 5 criteria for what fake news in their view is and all 5 of those criteria are subjective and can be applied differently based on personal bias and opinion. What I didn't find was a list of news sources they consider to be fake news or the facts supporting the assertion that they are in fact fake news. As I said this is not a study but rather a report on multiple personal opinions.

and i'm sure you'd still feel that way if they'd said fake news was a leftwing thing. speaking of bias..

[jg121783 3,915]

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

and i'm sure you'd still feel that way if they'd said fake news was a leftwing thing. speaking of bias..

Without facts backing up their assertions on what qualifies as fake news and without them even providing a list of news outlets they consider to be fake news I would say it is a series of opinions rather than a factual study regardless of their conclusion. Putting that red herring aside you still haven't demonstrated that this is a factual study versus an opinion piece.

[Boiler 45,481]

21 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I was able to get the pdf and looked over it. They do define 5 criteria for what fake news in their view is and all 5 of those criteria are subjective and can be applied differently based on personal bias and opinion. What I didn't find was a list of news sources they consider to be fake news or the facts supporting the assertion that they are in fact fake news. As I said this is not a study but rather a report on multiple personal opinions.

Who did they mention, other than CNN etc.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

what do you think he said? 

I think he said it was an opinion study which would mean it is based on subjective parameters.  Seems pretty clear to me.

[Dashinka 24,492]

 

 

27 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

and i'm sure you'd still feel that way if they'd said fake news was a leftwing thing. speaking of bias..

I know I would. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think he said it was an opinion study which would mean it is based on subjective parameters.  Seems pretty clear to me.

that's not what i read him say. 

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

 

I know I would. 

i know i've seen plenty of fake news from liberal sources, shared often.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

what do you think he said? 

I know for a FACT he said:

 

”The fact of the matter is this doesn't qualify as a study but rather an opinion piece. The criteria for classifying news outlets as fake news is highly subjective.”

 

See how the words “Oxford don’t know what they are doing” cannot be found anywhere among those words?

 

Your idea of fake news is likely different from someone right beside you, because the concept of fake news is sometimes subjective.  I could say you are a woman, based on what little I know about you.  But if you identify as a man, then my proclamation would be fake news, right?

[bcking 3,157]

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews.pdf

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf - Online supplemental information

 

Here is the actual paper for those wanting to read it.

 

Under Study Sample and Method:

 

For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:

• Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, 3 with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

 

They had 12 coders each go through their sources and identify which met the criteria. The inter-coder reliability among the core "executive coders" was 0.805. They don't actually mention how they deal with coders labeling sources different, which they should have clarified.

 

Page 6 of the supplemental information begins the list of every "junk news" website they identified. I won't copy and paste it since it is long.

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,492]

21 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

that's not what i read him say. 

i know i've seen plenty of fake news from liberal sources, shared often.

Subjective means that opinions were used to form the parameters.  You label this an objective study?

[Boiler 45,481]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews.pdf

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf - Online supplemental information

 

Here is the actual paper for those wanting to read it.

 

Under Study Sample and Method:

 

For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:

• Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, 3 with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

 

They had 12 coders each go through their sources and identify which met the criteria. The inter-coder reliability among the core "executive coders" was 0.805. They don't actually mention how they deal with coders labeling sources different, which they should have clarified.

 

Page 6 of the supplemental information begins the list of every "junk news" website they identified. I won't copy and paste it since it is long.

 

 

 

 

Well CNN gets a big 4.

 

I am being generous.

[Dashinka 24,492]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews.pdf

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf - Online supplemental information

 

Here is the actual paper for those wanting to read it.

 

Under Study Sample and Method:

 

For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:

• Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, 3 with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

 

They had 12 coders each go through their sources and identify which met the criteria. The inter-coder reliability among the core "executive coders" was 0.805. They don't actually mention how they deal with coders labeling sources different, which they should have clarified.

 

Page 6 of the supplemental information begins the list of every "junk news" website they identified. I won't copy and paste it since it is long.

 

 

 

 

So how objective are these categories?