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

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, eieio said:

None taken. You watch CNN. Thats about all one needs to know.

I wasn't commenting on the CNN part, but glad you have no objections to my assessment.

 

"CNN is fake news" is an objectively false statement. It has published stories that are fake, but if that is the only requirement than literally every news channel is fake news.

 

More likely that phrase is just being repeated like a parrot repeats his master's words.

[eieio 1,594]

 

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I wasn't commenting on the CNN part, but glad you have no objections to my assessment.

 

"CNN is fake news" is an objectively false statement. It has published stories that are fake, but if that is the only requirement than literally every news channel is fake news.

 

More likely that phrase is just being repeated like a parrot repeats his master's words.

Wrong!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

I'll make it easier for some. CNN is fake news.  

 

The study in this thread is basically trash.

 

   It does make it easier for some on the right. Much easier to repeat the fake news mantra over and over than to admit you got sucked in by some guy on face book. 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Which news channel has a long history of fake news? Had numerous retractions and had to make apologies for fake news? The Trump Propaganda Channel of course!

[eieio 1,594]

45 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It does make it easier for some on the right. Much easier to repeat the fake news mantra over and over than to admit you got sucked in by some guy on face book. 

Facebook LOL

 

This guy is an actual journalist.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, eieio said:

Facebook LOL

 

This guy is an actual journalist.

 

 

   Yes, he won the award for best journalist on social media in 2013. I don't think he is part of the problem.

 

   Alex Jones is also a journalist. Whether someone is a journalist or not is not the driving criteria behind how reliable the news source is.

[eieio 1,594]

Alex Jones is the same as CNN. I don’t watch or read either. Neither are trustworthy.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

48 minutes ago, eieio said:

Alex Jones is the same as CNN. I don’t watch or read either. Neither are trustworthy.

 

   There's your problem right there. Alex Jones is not the same as CNN. If people than can't make that distinction, it's no surprise that people can't tell the difference between a political slant and a completely made up story.

 

   The study only points out the discrepancy in the sharing of fake news. It did not really address how or why this happens in any detail, but certainly some empirical evidence here.

[Boiler 45,517]

I watch CNN and can confirm a lot of it is fake.

[jg121783 3,915]

You guys can call it a study if it makes you feel better but whatever you want to call it at the end of the day it's conclusions are based on opinion and not fact. They provide criteria for classifying a news source as fake news and then proceed to list what they declare to be fake news sources without any factual explanation whatsoever as to why these news sources are fake news. That is called an opinion.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

19 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

You guys can call it a study if it makes you feel better but whatever you want to call it at the end of the day it's conclusions are based on opinion and not fact. They provide criteria for classifying a news source as fake news and then proceed to list what they declare to be fake news sources without any factual explanation whatsoever as to why these news sources are fake news. That is called an opinion.

 

  Did you read the Oxford study or just the Guardian story or are you just reacting to the idea? The computational propaganda project has been going on since 2012. How they classify junk news sites, how they track bots and look at algorithms and automated websites, and the impact these things have on the spread of "news" on Facebook and Twitter is all outlined in the study. 

 

  It looks like some of you are reacting to the headline or the Guardian story without actually looking at the research. BTW the Guardian uses the term "fake news", the study uses "junk news". Fake news was not really a common term in 2012. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So how objective are these categories?

 

  They seem to be objective criteria. To be categorized as junk news, a site has to fall into at least 3 of the categories, so it's not like they are going to end up on the list arbitrarily because of one poorly sourced/verified article.

[Dashinka 24,499]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They seem to be objective criteria. To be categorized as junk news, a site has to fall into at least 3 of the categories, so it's not like they are going to end up on the list arbitrarily because of one poorly sourced/verified article.

They do?  Seems pretty subjective to me and subject to the opinions and biases of the people that make the determination.  Not very scientific in my opinion, but @bckinghas already assessed this as a poor research which I agree with them on.

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They seem to be objective criteria. To be categorized as junk news, a site has to fall into at least 3 of the categories, so it's not like they are going to end up on the list arbitrarily because of one poorly sourced/verified article.

They do a decent job with the task they have given themselves. This would be a very hard topic to study.

 

They sort if glance over the identification of junk news, and don't really treat it like a part of the study and instead it's just a part of their methods. That's a shame because I think it is the core of their study. I didn't really even read any of their Facebook/Twitter stuff.

 

They have a set criteria, which is great.  But then they are a bit vague on how they identify websites. They have a certain number of coders, but do they rate the same website and compare? Do they all look at different ones? They give an inter-rater reliability for their primary coders, but don't explain if they're involved in any "double checking" of the regular coders.

 

Also - if a website publishes a single article that makes it fit three of five categories, is it suddenly junk news? Things may skip by and I wouldn't completely label an entire website for one poorly written article. 

 

The concept of "junk news websites" ultimately has a bit of "gestalt" to it. An overall view of the website. That is hard to be objective about.

 

So what they should have done is have multiple coders independently review the same website. Then have a system to deal with disagreements among the coders. They should have at least blinded the name of the website, but blinding content would be near impossible since the assessment of the website requires you to read its contents.

 

The methodology was always going to be partly subjective, given the topic. They could have done more (or at least explained more about what they did) to increase reliability. At the end of the day though their biggest issue is they don't acknowledge it as a weakness. 

 

Thatis my biggest pet peeve with literature. A paper can get away with a lot of methodological concerns if they openly bring them up and are honest about them. Studies all have flaws, but you shouldn't try to hide them or ignore them.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

8 hours ago, eieio said:

Alex Jones is the same as CNN. I don’t watch or read either. Neither are trustworthy.

 

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There's your problem right there. Alex Jones is not the same as CNN. If people than can't make that distinction, it's no surprise that people can't tell the difference between a political slant and a completely made up story.

 

   The study only points out the discrepancy in the sharing of fake news. It did not really address how or why this happens in any detail, but certainly some empirical evidence here.

 

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Yes, he won the award for best journalist on social media in 2013. I don't think he is part of the problem.

 

   Alex Jones is also a journalist. Whether someone is a journalist or not is not the driving criteria behind how reliable the news source is.

Alex Jones is TRASH just like CNN. All CNN wants to talk about is Russian Collusion and Trump this or that, while at the same time leaving out news from the rest of the world. I was watching CNN one time after a big event happened overseas and ALL they kept talking about was Trump Trump Trump and Russia Collusion. I was thinking to myself "Hello, don't you see this big event that happened in xxx country, why don't you report on that like every other news station is doing".

 

Don't get me started on Alex Jones because I can't stand that wacko.