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

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

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

study? it's a study now? i thought it was an 'opinion piece'.

[Dashinka 24,492]

Just now, smilesammich said:

study? it's a study now? i thought it was an 'opinion piece'.

A subjective study is an opinion piece.  They are the same.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour 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.

Throwing around the term “fake news” is about as useful as tossing out the term “racism”. Neither is very productive.  But both tend to play to emotions.  

 

The fact is, opinions have become the new “news”.  Anyone willing to write an article for a news outlet, or a blog, is suddenly a “reporter”.  And while sharing opinions isn’t necessarily a bad thing, trying to pass them off as facts is, for the most part.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour 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..

Wow.  Amazing ability, to be able to predict how another member will feel.  Do you have other superhero powers?  

 

I remember you getting on to others for telling you what you think or feel.  Shoe is now on the other foot, it seems.

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

 

2 hours ago, jg121783 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.

 

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

A subjective study is an opinion piece.  They are the same.

well then somebody better tell jg121783 

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Wow.  Amazing ability, to be able to predict how another member will feel.  Do you have other superhero powers?  

 

I remember you getting on to others for telling you what you think or feel.  Shoe is now on the other foot, it seems.

don't be jealous of my superhero powers and please don't bring totally unrelated nonsense from other threads into this one. if anyone has a problem with what i said they can report it. k thx.

[jg121783 3,915]

37 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.

 

 

 

 

As I said the criteria are subjective and we don't even have a list of news outlets who are considered fake news or why specifically they are considered fake news. I still stand by my assertion that this isn't a study but an opinion piece. No verifiable facts have been presented whatsoever.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

As I said the criteria are subjective and we don't even have a list of news outlets who are considered fake news or why specifically they are considered fake news. I still stand by my assertion that this isn't a study but an opinion piece. No verifiable facts have been presented whatsoever.

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

 

you'll be happy to know occupy democrats is rightfully listed along with infowars..

[Boiler 45,481]

49 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

study? it's a study now? i thought it was an 'opinion piece'.

Agree with Sandwich, an opinion piece.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

29 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

don't be jealous of my superhero powers and please don't bring totally unrelated nonsense from other threads into this one. if anyone has a problem with what i said they can report it. k thx.

 

It’s your M.O., and you are in this thread, so it applies.  Just pointing it out for ya.

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Agree with Sandwich, an opinion piece.

i highly recommend staying away from cnn. since we agree. 

[bcking 3,157]

57 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.

It is still a research study actually. Many studies are subject to bias. That doesn't make them "not a study".

 

They had a hypothesis, they had a systematic methodology that they employed to test their hypothesis. Their methodology included subjective measures, but MANY MANY studies include subjective measures. That doesn't disqualify it as not research.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

A subjective study is an opinion piece.  They are the same.

Not true.

 

A study may have subjective results but was done in a systematic way, with methodology that was defined a priori and results that were testing a specified hypothesis. That is VERY different from people forming an "opinion" on the subject.

[bcking 3,157]

32 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

As I said the criteria are subjective and we don't even have a list of news outlets who are considered fake news or why specifically they are considered fake news. I still stand by my assertion that this isn't a study but an opinion piece. No verifiable facts have been presented whatsoever.

We actually do have the list. Click on the supplemental link if you'd like to see it. They don't usually include that sort of information in the body of a paper because it would be too long.

 

They don't, however, specify what criteria each study was "positive" for. Nor do they report how they achieved consensus among coders. I agree that I would prefer to have that additional information.

 

That being said, it is ABSOLUTELY not an opinion piece. No scientist would label it just an opinion. It is absolutely a research study. Having subjective outcome measures does not mean you are just writing an opinion.

Edited February 6, 2018 by bcking

[Boiler 45,481]

13 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i highly recommend staying away from cnn. since we agree. 

I know I know...