DBP66 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Trump supporters share more fake news than anyone else, study shows Emily Shugerman,The Independent 12 hours ago Trump supporters share more fake news on social media than any other political group, according to a new study from Oxford University. Researchers studied more than 13,000 Twitter users and 47,000 Facebook pages in the days leading up to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address to determine which social media users spread the most “junk” news. They discovered that Trump supporters on Twitter shared more unreliable news than all other groups combined. On Facebook, extreme conservatives share more junk news than all other audiences put together. The researchers defined “junk news” as “misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture”. A team of 12 researchers coded news stories to determine which sites were likely to broadcast this kind of news. The final list included sites like Breitbart News and InfoWars. The researchers then recorded the activity of 13,477 Twitter users and 47,719 public Facebook pages in the three months leading up to the State of the Union, in order to see which users shared the most articles from these sites. The users were then grouped into categories based on their ideologies. Twitter users, for example, were grouped into categories like “Trump support” or “resistance”. Facebook users fell into categories like “Democratic party,” “hard conservative,” or “conspiracy”. The researchers found that 96 per cent of those in the “Trump support” category shared junk news on Twitter in the days leading up to the State of the Union. This group also shared more junk news than any other group combined. On Facebook, 91 per cent of the “hard conservatives group” shared junk news – even more than members of the “conspiracy” group. These findings suggest that "a small chunk of the population isn’t able to talk politics or share ideas in a sensible way with the rest of the population,” lead researcher Philip Howard told McClatchy DC. He added: “That’s a problem for democracy. In an ideal world, everybody would get at least a few of the same news stories. There’d be some shared facts and some shared understanding of the problems” facing the country.” Mr Trump has long raged against what he calls the “fake news media” – a label he ascribes to reporting on everything from the Russia investigation to his TV viewing habits. The President even unveiled a fake news awards last month, in which he handed out to those he deemed the “most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media”. Outlets on the list included ABC, CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Breitbart and InfoWars were not included. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 37 minutes ago, DBP66 said: Trump supporters share more fake news than anyone else, study shows Emily Shugerman,The Independent 12 hours ago Trump supporters share more fake news on social media than any other political group, according to a new study from Oxford University. Researchers studied more than 13,000 Twitter users and 47,000 Facebook pages in the days leading up to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address to determine which social media users spread the most “junk” news. They discovered that Trump supporters on Twitter shared more unreliable news than all other groups combined. On Facebook, extreme conservatives share more junk news than all other audiences put together. The researchers defined “junk news” as “misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture”. A team of 12 researchers coded news stories to determine which sites were likely to broadcast this kind of news. The final list included sites like Breitbart News and InfoWars. The researchers then recorded the activity of 13,477 Twitter users and 47,719 public Facebook pages in the three months leading up to the State of the Union, in order to see which users shared the most articles from these sites. The users were then grouped into categories based on their ideologies. Twitter users, for example, were grouped into categories like “Trump support” or “resistance”. Facebook users fell into categories like “Democratic party,” “hard conservative,” or “conspiracy”. The researchers found that 96 per cent of those in the “Trump support” category shared junk news on Twitter in the days leading up to the State of the Union. This group also shared more junk news than any other group combined. On Facebook, 91 per cent of the “hard conservatives group” shared junk news – even more than members of the “conspiracy” group. These findings suggest that "a small chunk of the population isn’t able to talk politics or share ideas in a sensible way with the rest of the population,” lead researcher Philip Howard told McClatchy DC. He added: “That’s a problem for democracy. In an ideal world, everybody would get at least a few of the same news stories. There’d be some shared facts and some shared understanding of the problems” facing the country.” Mr Trump has long raged against what he calls the “fake news media” – a label he ascribes to reporting on everything from the Russia investigation to his TV viewing habits. The President even unveiled a fake news awards last month, in which he handed out to those he deemed the “most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media”. Outlets on the list included ABC, CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Breitbart and InfoWars were not included. From the movie "The Sting"......" If a con is successful, the mark does not realize he has been "taken" (cheated), at least not until the con men are long gone." The people that backed Trump still don't know how badly they were conned by the RUSSIANS. The Russians also have a term for these people..........."USEFUL IDIOTS"............and they know how to USE them over and over and over again. Cadet Bone Spurs' Junior Cadets ready to howl in .....3.....2......1..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 I'm sure a study by undoubtedly liberal academics at a liberal institution choosing what is junk versus non-junk etc led to a completely objective and assailable study. In other news, a study by Boston Red Sox fans found that the Yankees suck. Carry on, kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Junior Cadet Concha is right on cue ! ! ! You are such a good little soldier but still in the dark. See how good of a job they did conning you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, stanscript said: Junior Cadet Concha is right on cue ! ! ! You are such a good little soldier but still in the dark. See how good of a job they did conning you. Would hate to disappoint you. Nice to see that you'll still believe anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 20 minutes ago, concha said: Would hate to disappoint you. Nice to see that you'll still believe anything. Junior Cadet Concha, you just got demoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, stanscript said: Junior Cadet Concha, you just got demoted. You bet, Sport. Just for entertainment purposes, I looked into this "study". I suggest you do so also if you are at all interested in the concept of intellectual honesty. When your list of "junk" new sources is overwhelmingly chosen from the right wing to start, what do you think the results will be? Look for yourself. Check pages 6-9. It's laughable in its bias. http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 15 minutes ago, concha said: You bet, Sport. Just for entertainment purposes, I looked into this "study". I suggest you do so also if you are at all interested in the concept of intellectual honesty. Post the republican version/memo, Cadet! Quit playing around...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 36 minutes ago, concha said: You bet, Sport. Just for entertainment purposes, I looked into this "study". I suggest you do so also if you are at all interested in the concept of intellectual honesty. When your list of "junk" new sources is overwhelmingly chosen from the right wing to start, what do you think the results will be? Look for yourself. Check pages 6-9. It's laughable in its bias. http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf I did. You need to carefully re-read: Table 1 Table 2 6. Junk News Classifications ("For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must apply:") That's the key phrase. and not just focus on pages 6-9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 2 minutes ago, stanscript said: I did. You need to carefully re-read: Table 1 Table 2 6. Junk News Classifications and not just focus on pages 6-9. The point of the study was to show what groups on social media share the most (according to the study's view) "junk" news. Tables 1 & 2 are simply their classification of groups that share content. If the junk news sites they chose (Table 3, pp 6-9) is a list hugely skewed to include large numbers of right-wing sites, then guess what groups end up sharing the most "junk" news? <<Jeopardy music playing>> If I were to set up a study of groups reading and sharing content from sports sites and I wanted to prove the "baseball group" shared the most, guess what sites I'd put on the equivalent of Table 3? Gee... baseball sites, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, concha said: The point of the study was to show what groups on social media share the most (according to the study's view) "junk" news. Tables 1 & 2 are simply their classification of groups that share content. If the junk news sites they chose (Table 3, pp 6-9) is a list hugely skewed to include large numbers of right-wing sites, then guess what groups end up sharing the most "junk" news? <<Jeopardy music playing>> If I were to set up a study of groups reading and sharing content from sports sites and I wanted to prove the "baseball group" shared the most, guess what sites I'd put on the equivalent of Table 3? Gee... baseball sites, maybe? Junior Cadet Concha is still clueless. The study set the parameters and their finding based on those parameters. Check out page S21 and S22 S=supplemental page closer to the bottom) in the link below: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, stanscript said: Junior Cadet Concha is still clueless. The study set the parameters and their finding based on those parameters. Just the zero facts, intellectually dishonest response I expected. Gracias for not disappointing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 30 minutes ago, concha said: Just the zero facts, intellectually dishonest response I expected. Gracias for not disappointing... You may not have seen the Darmouth link I posted above. Check out pages S21 and S22. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf Pretty clearcut evidence or can't you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 51 minutes ago, stanscript said: You may not have seen the Darmouth link I posted above. Check out S21 and S22. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf Pretty clearcut evidence or can't you understand? Serious question: Do you actually read these things and put any critical thought into it? They put credence (apparently) in "four recognized fact-checkers". One of them is Snopes for God's sake - run by avowed liberals and mired in sleazy scandal. One of the others is run by WaPo. Another, Politifact, was founded by The Tampa Bay Times - a newspaper that has literally never endorsed a Republican for high office since it was founded in the 1800s. No joke. That same Politifact recently tried to hire Alan Grayson (!). I shit you not. Alan Effing Grayson. Did you look at the list of junk sites found in this study? Roughly 100 "junk news" sites listed. 5 were pro-Hillary. I have this habit when I see a poll or a study that looks suspicious of looking at the actual details like the political identifications of the respondents. Or in cases like this, actually looking at data that might be skewed like hugely disproportionate lists of right-wing sites. Or lending credence to sites like Snopes simply because they claim to be an unbiased "fact-checker". Don't be a sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, concha said: Do you actually read these things and put any critical thought into it? 4 hours ago, concha said: Don't be a sheep. I promised myself I would not respond to you today but this is so wild, so ironic, for you of all people to say. You have no concept of self. None, zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, concha said: I have this habit when I see a poll or a study that looks suspicious of looking at the actual details like the political identifications of the respondents. Or in cases like this, actually looking at data that might be skewed like hugely disproportionate lists of right-wing sites. and then you reject anything that is not biased toward your preferred ideology. This post is just plan old wild coming from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 5 hours ago, stanscript said: You may not have seen the Darmouth link I posted above. Check out pages S21 and S22. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf Pretty clearcut evidence or can't you understand? I am now positive, Conch was dropped on his head as a kid. read his surreal reply to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted February 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 7 hours ago, concha said: I'm sure a study by undoubtedly liberal academics at a liberal institution choosing what is junk versus non-junk etc led to a completely objective and assailable study. In other news, a study by Boston Red Sox fans found that the Yankees suck. Carry on, kids. shoot the messenger champ?....Oxford University isn't Trump University.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: I promised myself I would not respond to you today but this is so wild, so ironic, for you of all people to say. You have no concept of self. None, zero. nooner, Instead of verbally-vomited ramblings and musings from the voices in your head, why not try something radical like trying to buy a clue and actually knowing what you're talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: I am now positive, Conch was dropped on his head as a kid. read his surreal reply to you. Or the class can note that my critiques of these "studies" are not refuted and the fact you are a waste of bandwidth and completely unable to address them. nooner = zero value-added Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 54 minutes ago, DBP66 said: shoot the messenger champ?....Oxford University isn't Trump University.... I'd ask if you read the studies and put any critical thought into it, but they aren't in crayon, and you and thought have never crossed paths, so those questions are already answered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, concha said: critical thought you ask another? the absurdity you are true discipline of Trump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: you ask another? the absurdity you are true discipline of Trump And take a remedial English course while you're at it. nooner = zero value-added Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Truly telling story here...... I SURE HOPE THAT EVERYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION!!! Threadstarter starts with spearchucking the flaming arrow of "YOU GUYS (listen to and) SPREAD MORE SLANTED BS THAN WE DO" Opposition states that any of threadstarters 'proof' needs to be more properly vetted before it can be spread as news....(you know as in exactly what he is doing while trying to paint others as doing it more).... Of course guy getting called for doing exactly what he condemns, and the rest of the peanut gallery joins the chorus of.... 8 hours ago, stanscript said: Pretty clearcut evidence or can't you understand? oh the irony....... of course the thread can't be complete without Nooner jumping in to call anyone who does not swallow the hypocricy and ignore what they see as.. 2 hours ago, noonereal said: I am now positive, Conch was dropped on his head as a kid. ... well...his version of 'stupid'.... Par for the course....same shit different day.... see you guys tommorrow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 49 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Truly telling story here...... I SURE HOPE THAT EVERYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION!!! Threadstarter starts with spearchucking the flaming arrow of "YOU GUYS (listen to and) SPREAD MORE SLANTED BS THAN WE DO" Opposition states that any of threadstarters 'proof' needs to be more properly vetted before it can be spread as news....(you know as in exactly what he is doing while trying to paint others as doing it more).... Of course guy getting called for doing exactly what he condemns, and the rest of the peanut gallery joins the chorus of.... oh the irony....... of course the thread can't be complete without Nooner jumping in to call anyone who does not swallow the hypocricy and ignore what they see as.. ... well...his version of 'stupid'.... Par for the course....same shit different day.... see you guys tommorrow... 8 hours ago, concha said: Serious question: Do you actually read these things and put any critical thought into it? They put credence (apparently) in "four recognized fact-checkers". One of them is Snopes for God's sake - run by avowed liberals and mired in sleazy scandal. One of the others is run by WaPo. Another, Politifact, was founded by The Tampa Bay Times - a newspaper that has literally never endorsed a Republican for high office since it was founded in the 1800s. No joke. That same Politifact recently tried to hire Alan Grayson (!). I shit you not. Alan Effing Grayson. Did you look at the list of junk sites found in this study? Roughly 100 "junk news" sites listed. 5 were pro-Hillary. I have this habit when I see a poll or a study that looks suspicious of looking at the actual details like the political identifications of the respondents. Or in cases like this, actually looking at data that might be skewed like hugely disproportionate lists of right-wing sites. Or lending credence to sites like Snopes simply because they claim to be an unbiased "fact-checker". Don't be a sheep. ^ ^ ^ ^ This is a great example of how the conspiracy theorist mind works. Everything that he doesn't agree with is suspect or flawed. No wonder he backs Cadet Bone Spurs. I'll take a Dartmouth, Oxford, the Washington Post and Snopes any day. Who you got Jr. Cadet ? Breitbart, Infowars, Fox News? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.