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

[Dashinka 24,499]

5 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

 

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.

That is pretty telling that they will ignore major news events to keep other narratives front and center.  I wonder who is making those decisions?  They must really hate, and I mean big time HATE, Trump.

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 hours ago, Boiler said:

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

you're not going to see cnn reporting on the child sex ring that is currently operating on mars. NASA OF COURSE DENIES ALL INVOLVEMENT!

 

[Dashinka 24,499]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you're not going to see cnn reporting on the child sex ring that is currently operating on mars. NASA OF COURSE DENIES ALL INVOLVEMENT!

 

Isn't CNN still looking for MH370?

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't CNN still looking for MH370?

i have no idea. i don't watch cnn.

[Dashinka 24,499]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

i have no idea. i don't watch cnn.

Does anybody, other than @Boileroccasionally, watch them?

[smilesammich 10,727]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does anybody, other than @Boileroccasionally, watch them?

i have no idea. i couldn't care less about cnn. imo, if you think something is fake news or trash - don't pay attention to it. there's way too many options out there to focus on one channel.

for example, at one time i followed occupy democrats on facebook. once i saw a pattern of misleading and sensationalized posts - i stopped following. it's really that simple.

Edited February 7, 2018 by smilesammich

[Boiler 45,517]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does anybody, other than @Boileroccasionally, watch them?

Hmm

 

Judging by their figures not many of us.

 

Sandwich likes her Joe.

[smilesammich 10,727]

if news is on in my house it's msnbc or local nbc/abc/cbs.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

40 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

 

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.

 

  CNN is garbage. You got that part right. Alex Jones is trash on a completely different level than CNN. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  CNN is garbage. You got that part right. Alex Jones is trash on a completely different level than CNN. 

alex jones is entertaining trash. he has a special place in my heart. in the vicinity of john waters and pink flamingos. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

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.

 

  I think the key is the bolded part. I don't see an issue with being able to use the criteria objectively, but since they didn't disclose several aspects of the methodology it leaves it open to speculation. As I said before though, they are not the only study to come to this conclusion.

[Boiler 45,517]

18 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i have no idea. i couldn't care less about cnn. imo, if you think something is fake news or trash - don't pay attention to it. there's way too many options out there to focus on one channel.

for example, at one time i followed occupy democrats on facebook. once i saw a pattern of misleading and sensationalized posts - i stopped following. it's really that simple.

It is like watching a train wreck, sometime you just have to. You can not ignore it.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

alex jones is entertaining trash. he has a special place in my heart. in the vicinity of john waters and pink flamingos. 

 

    The entertainment value is definitely there. As long as you don't buy his supplements, you're OK.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

It is like watching a train wreck, sometime you just have to. You can not ignore it.

i love a good train wreck, but i don't watch fox and friends either. consistently complacent mediocrity just isn't my thing.

[bcking 3,157]

Just out of curiosity -

 

When people talk about their different sources of news - Are you talking about on television, or their websites?

 

I don't even have cable, or get basic channels. I watch zero TV news so I can't speak for any provider on the television.

 

I've admitted several times on these forums that typically my first website I go to for "easy news" is CNN. I don't pay for Wapo or NYT.

 

While there is absolutely ####### on CNN's website...I do find using a website allows you to "pick and choose". I don't know how they report things on television, where you are essentially "force fed" information without a choice in the matter. But I find their website covers pretty much all of the major topics. If I want to look for more "riveting stuff" I'll go elsewhere for sure, but for just knowing what is going on I don't find it bad. You just have to pick and choose.

 

You'll certainly find more "conspiracy theory" ridden junk on places like infowars than you will ever find on CNN's website. That's not a compliment to CNN as much as it is just a recognition of the steaming ####### that is infowars.