New study suggests Donald Trump’s “fake news” attacks are backfiring

[90DayFinancier 910]

People tend to become more trusting of news stories after being exposed to President Donald Trump’s tweets attacking so-called “fake news,” according to new research published in Mass Communication and Society. The findings provide evidence that Trump’s tweets are having the opposite of their intended effect.

“There had been a great deal of popular concern, both from the public and journalism outlets, about Trump’s disparagement of news media via Twitter and labeling legitimate news organizations as ‘fake news.’ We thought to design a quick study to empirically validate those concerns and show just how damaging the tweets were to people’s perceptions of journalistic credibility and trust,” remarked study author Daniel J. Tamul, an assistant professor of communication at Virginia Tech.

The researchers conducted an initial pilot study with 331 people, in which some participants were randomly assigned to read a tweet from Trump saying the “very dishonest Fake News Media is out of control” before reading an Associated Press news story about immigration.

 

https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-study-suggests-donald-trumps-fake-news-attacks-are-backfiring-55335

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The demographic relying on NPR for "news" trust NPR more than Trump's tweets. Huge shock.

 

If one wants to know what drove a pointless "study":

 

Quote

As a populist appeal strategy, tweets about “fake news” may be intended to fundamentally alter how audiences process news narratives in an effort to inoculate audiences against attitude change.

 

And attitude change is precisely the goal of fake news. Science and information itself is nothing more than a narrative to push.

 

In their disappointment with the 2016 results in their own analysis, they made sure for the latter not to point out in the real world how effective Trump's fake news tweets are and how much they resonate with a populace that does distrust the media, nor address the media's credibility itself by virtue of Trump's election and steadfast support.

 

https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-communication/faculty/dan-tamul.html

Quote

Dr. Tamul’s research focuses on the formal affordances of journalistic storytelling and how news narratives can function as agents of social change as examined through a narrative persuasion framework

 

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/rated-false-heres-the-most-interesting-new-research-on-fake-news-and-fact-checking

Quote

The authors of that paper recommend journalists “engage in a sort of news jujitsu, turning the negative energy of Trump’s tweets into a force for creating additional interest in news.”

 

All aboard the gaslight express. 

 

(tl;dr-> It's not backfiring)

Edited January 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   Burnt, we had 9 uses of the term gaslight in the history of VJ before you joined, and 281 since then. I understand that you learned a new word recently, but can you give it a rest? 

[TBoneTX 45,292]

3 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

legitimate news organizations as ‘fake news.’

Need to look, but The Media have something like a 10% favorable rating in one or more recent polls.

33 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

gaslight [...] can you give it a rest? 

I will assist with a helpful distraction (ahem, harrumph):

"Bee-to, Bee-to [dumb bum dumb bum]"

[Neonred 3,562]

33 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I will assist with a helpful distraction (ahem, harrumph):

"Bee-to, Bee-to [dumb bum dumb bum]"

"Bee-to, Bee-to [done, done, done]"

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Burnt, we had 9 uses of the term gaslight in the history of VJ before you joined, and 281 since then. I understand that you learned a new word recently, but can you give it a rest? 

I understand the left claim ownership of this term (one they didn't adopt until recently) and thus demonstrate hostility when this term is used against them or to describe the media/politician/government/other usage of gaslighting, but I'm not going to stop using it when applicable. If you don't like it, there's a block function.

 

Short answer: no.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Need to look, but The Media have something like a 10% favorable rating in one or more recent polls.

I will assist with a helpful distraction (ahem, harrumph):

"Bee-to, Bee-to [dumb bum dumb bum]"

 

   Once in a while is cute. As long as you can appreciate that if you started following me and posting that for no apparent reason every time I made a post, I would have to refer you to the relevant sections of the TOS. Which is what the gas lighting thing appears to have evolved into. Every time I see 90DF post an article, the follow up is invariably something about gas lighting posted by Burnt. 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

33 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Once in a while is cute. As long as you can appreciate that if you started following me and posting that for no apparent reason every time I made a post, I would have to refer you to the relevant sections of the TOS. Which is what the gas lighting thing appears to have evolved into. Every time I see 90DF post an article, the follow up is invariably something about gas lighting posted by Burnt. 

 

 

Ahh, trying to dictate discussion with the use of outrage.

 

Your problem however is I directly attacked the substance of the argument, citing the study itself (which I read, along with its methodology), going to the heart of why this "study" was done by its creators, went into the background of the creators and the "narrative driving for social change" they're committed to, and the fact that they are committed to forming narratives against Trump to make people think A when in reality its B. So yeah, gaslighting. You could literally say gaslighting is the expertise of these people.

 

I do commend you however on the persistence of throwing fits and trying to shut down conversation when its not going your way.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[TBoneTX 45,292]

Now, now... point made.  Perhaps a substitute term can be substituted as a substitute term.

23 hours ago, Neonred said:

"Bee-to, Bee-to [done, done, done]"

Not so fast... he's going to be Biden's Hispanic VP nominee!

[90DayFinancier 910]

20 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Ahh, trying to dictate discussion with the use of outrage.

Some in this forum wallow in those methods

 

Quote

Your problem however is I directly attacked the substance of the argument,

 

I never saw you  prove the study was flawed or could not be reproduced. Can you do that?

 

Quote

 

citing the study itself (which I read, along with its methodology),

You posted your "rebuttal" 30 minutes after the article went up.

I am not sure how you were able to gather a valid argument so quickly, evidence suggests you weren't able to.

Example:

  You said (sarcastically) that the 

"demographic relying on NPR for "news" trust NPR more than Trump's tweets. Huge shock"

 

But the article doesn't talk about the demographic of those "relying on NPR" it talks about using NPR fact sheets as the news article that was read before the Trump tweet. 

 

Can you share your copy of the study with me? It is behind a paywall and maybe if I looked at I  could help you understand it better.

 

Quote

 

 

going to the heart of why this "study" was done by its creators,

 

 

So , you didn't address the study, just the potential motives and biases of the authors. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

went into the background of the creators and the "narrative driving for social change" they're committed to, and the fact that they are committed to forming narratives against Trump to make people think

 

 

Quote

 

A when in reality its B.

You never established it was B, so it's still A.

 

Quote

 

 

So yeah, gaslighting. You could literally say gaslighting is the expertise of these people.

You don't understand the proper application if that term. You also don't demonstrate compassion for those who have been victims of gaslighting on a personal level. It is a serious form of abuse in relationships.

 

Quote

 

I do commend you however on the persistence of throwing fits and trying to shut down conversation when its not going your way.

Smh

Edited January 25, 2020 by 90DayFinancier

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

I do commend you however on the persistence of throwing fits and trying to shut down conversation when its not going your way.

 

   Actually I have you on ignore. No fits. No need to shut anything down. I don't even see your posts unless I go out of my way to do so.

 

   It's just an observation.  Your use of gas lighting is similar to when a toddler learns a new word, like "banana", and then goes on repeating the word over and over for days without regard to the situation. Banana this, banana that. As I said, cute for a little while, but after a while you have to wonder where the adults are.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Actually I have you on ignore. No fits. No need to shut anything down. I don't even see your posts unless I go out of my way to do so.

 

   It's just an observation.  Your use of gas lighting is similar to when a toddler learns a new word, like "banana", and then goes on repeating the word over and over for days without regard to the situation. Banana this, banana that. As I said, cute for a little while, but after a while you have to wonder where the adults are.

I have you on ignore also. I cant see a thing in the post above in which you are talking about gaslighting and bananas. I been reading about gaslighting. we use to call arguing back and forth

 

Gasdoxing- reveling information about someone in order to manipulate them into a point of view

Edited January 25, 2020 by Nature Boy 2.0

[laylalex 7,284]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I have you on ignore also. I cant see a thing in the post above in which you are talking about gaslighting and bananas. I been reading about gaslighting. we use to call arguing back and forth

 

Gasdoxing- reveling information about someone in order to manipulate them into a point of view

There is a great book on gaslighting that my therapist back in Berkeley had me read -- it's by the psychologist who invented the term. It's a fantastic read and has helped me in recognizing the patterns of repeated abuse in my life. The Gaslight Effect. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I have you on ignore also. I cant see a thing in the post above in which you are talking about gaslighting and bananas. I been reading about gaslighting. we use to call arguing back and forth

 

Gasdoxing- reveling information about someone in order to manipulate them into a point of view

So if everyone has everyone on ignore....

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

There is a great book on gaslighting that my therapist back in Berkeley had me read -- it's by the psychologist who invented the term. It's a fantastic read and has helped me in recognizing the patterns of repeated abuse in my life. The Gaslight Effect. 

The only psychoanalysis I feel is needed is... only I can allow it to happen to me.  It's a choice.