Support NeoGAF

[chillybright]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010

Since the US election presidential race, fact checking websites report what seems like an increase in anti-Trump, 'liberal fake news'.

The fact-checking site Snopes told BBC Trending radio that in the past week, for example, they have debunked many more anti-Republican party stories than pro-Republican ones.

One example of an incorrect story is the unflattering, digitally-manipulated image, which suggested that US President Donald Trump had diarrhoea during a recent golf outing. Another falsely suggested that President Trump profited from the US missile strikes in Syria.
It's hard to gather definitive data on the political bias in fake news stories, so the evidence for a rise in 'liberal fake news' is essentially anecdotal. But a recent study did effectively debunk the stereotype that fake news tends to be shared more by uneducated people or those with right-leaning politics, as compared to other groups.

"It [fake news] affects both the right and the left. It affects educated and uneducated. So the stereotypes of it being simply right-wing and simply uneducated are 100% not true," says Jeff Green, who is the CEO of Trade Desk, an internet advertising company that was recently commissioned by American TV channel CBS to investigate who is reading and sharing fake news online.

His company did this by initially putting out two fake news stories - one from the left which falsely stated police had raided a protestors camp at Standing Rock and burnt it down, and the other from a right-wing website about false claims there was a congressional plot to oust Donald Trump.

By using specialist software, the company's researchers then followed readers' online behaviour to get an idea of who and where they were.

"On the left if you're consuming fake news you're 34 times more likely than the general population to be a college graduate," says Green.

If you're on the right, he says, you're 18 times more likely than the general population to to be in the top 20 percent of income earners.

And the study revealed another disturbing trend: the more you consume fake news, the more likely you are to vote. It's "fascinating and frightening at the same time," says Green.

More in the article.

 

[kirblar]

Shouldn't be a surprise, Russia's goal is destabilization. Wikileaks went after Rs in the Bush years and Ds in the Obama years.

 

[Matsukaze]

And the study revealed another disturbing trend: the more you consume fake news, the more likely you are to vote.

Well, that's just super. :/

 

[Aaronrules380]

Confirmation bias is a huge thing. It's why the bests way to judge the validity of news is to make sure it's being reported by multiple well respected and credible sources, not your gut

 

[L Thammy]

We're surrounded by more information and we have less time; we need tools to help us make the determination. But a lot of people will benefit from us not having those tools, though I expect those to be demonized.

Side note, I still desperately want confirmation on whether or not the mulatto cocks thing is true, though.

 

[Nafai1123]

Which is why everyone should follow reputable sources.

 

[Aztechnology]

People want to consume media that confirms their biases. It's incredibly frustrating in either direction. I'm a very staunch liberal, but I practice pragmatism wherever I can. I try to check with multiple sources and read multiple arguments posed by different viewpoints when able.

People aren't practiced at doing opposition research, understanding different perspectives or practicing much empathy at all anymore. Things just get shittier and we become more binary in our views.

 

[valkillmore]

Which is why everyone should follow reputable sources.

What, like the Failing New York Times?

 

[Aztechnology]

Well, that's just super. :/

I guess liberal people will finally start getting out to vote then?

-_-

 

[chadskin]

BBC? That's another beauty.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

It's been noticeable. At least on gaf we usually debunk anything fake. Though i have seen the stuff about trump financially profiting from the strikes posted here a lot.

 

[Aurongel]

There's more money to be had publishing fake news when it's against those in power. It's the same reason that a right wing president is doing wonders for CNN's ratings. If we had a democratic president then you'd probably see right wing fake news in larger supply.

Right now, right wing fake news won a landslide election and obliterated the opposition, their job is complete.

 

[TaterTots]

This is only a surprise to liberals. Everyone has been manipulating stories since the primaries.

 

[soco]

This is only a surprise to liberals. Everyone has been manipulating stories since the primaries.

It's been happening since before the primaries and many "liberals" have been keenly aware.

Reducing this to liberals/conservatives or republicans/democrats is overly reductive to the point of being counterproductive.

 

[Easy_D]

Confirmation bias is a huge thing. It's why the bests way to judge the validity of news is to make sure it's being reported by multiple well respected and credible sources, not your gut

It's why I'm glad source criticism was something I was taught in school. A lot. The importance of which was made even clearer thanks to Uni and writing papers, always be fact checking

 

[F0rneus]

I'm not surprised that fake news affect both the left, and the right. The entire point is destabilization. Push out bullshit that blinds both sides. It's brilliant. And it won an election.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

A lot of the onus needs to fall onto SM companies. They need to cull the amount of bots propagating this stuff.

 

[NullPointer]

Don't just check your publication sources, but check the sourcing in each article you read. Is it from anonymous sources? named sources? is it just a reprint of a different article? if so, go to that source article. If its based upon documentation or speeches or interviews or public statements or reports, find the originals and see for yourself.

 

[soco]

A lot of the onus needs to fall onto SM companies. They need to cull the amount of bots propagating this stuff.

While this may help some, there's a large number of humans that propagate this too, and some behave almost like coordinated bot nets for their causes.

 

[2Smashed4U]

Yeah, let's not kid ourselves, this has been a thing for awhile. Bernie Sanders benefited tremendously from fake news aimed at the left to the point where I don't know if he would've been even considered a viable primary contender without it.

Some of the most leftist people I know share dubious shit from blahblahblah.info where it's literally the only source for the story all the time.

 

[kirblar]

A lot of the onus needs to fall onto SM companies. They need to cull the amount of bots propagating this stuff.

Thing is that the worst of it isn't younger people using SM. It's older people watching Fox News: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1359998&highlight=

 

[dynamitejim]

Fakes news is bad if it's against Trump, but I think it's important how people deal when presented with a debunking or fact checking of fake news. Do liberals go "Snopes is fkae news run by beta cucks, gimme trumplet tears KEK" or is it more "Oh, OK, that story is wrong even though it sounds like something corrupt or crazy Trump might actually do."

 

[L Thammy]

Do liberals go "Snopes is fkae news run by beta cucks, gimme trumplet tears KEK" or is it more "Oh, OK, that story is wrong even though it sounds like something corrupt or crazy Trump might actually do."

The latter reaction would be legitimizing news that is known to be fake, so I think those reactions are both pretty bad.

Fakes news is bad if it's against Trump

Um. I'm thinking maybe you worded that poorly or I'm missing your sarcasm?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

A lot of the onus needs to fall onto SM companies. They need to cull the amount of bots propagating this stuff.

My personal feeling is that social media is more at fault for engineering people into no longer reading. Capitalism at its best.

6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/

NPR Pulled a Brilliant April Fools' Prank On People Who Don't Read
http://gawker.com/npr-pulled-a-brilliant-april-fools-prank-on-people-who-1557745710

The "scattered browsing" habits you see with people using their phones where they're constantly moving around between screens and not just reading is fucking us up:

Study finds people don’t read the majority of news they share on Twitter
http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-study-news-sharing/

A new study has thrown doubt over the perception of social media as a viable news provider. The research, courtesy of Columbia University and the French National Institute, claims that six in 10 people who share news URLs on Twitter don’t actually bother with reading them.

The study looked at 2.8 million shares on Twitter, splitting the data into two categories: one that contained Bit.ly shortened URL links to five major news sources during the course of a month, and one that contained all the clicks attached to the first set. This, the researchers said, allowed them to create a map to show how a news item goes viral on Twitter.

The study’s findings reveal that users don’t click on 59 percent of the news shared on the social network. The spread of this unread news impacts what becomes a trending topic on Twitter. The researchers say that this senseless sharing of news may be having a greater impact on political and cultural agendas than previously realized.

Facebook drives more traffic to articles, but Twitter users spend more time reading them
https://qz.com/676677/facebook-driv...t-twitter-users-spend-more-time-reading-them/

To be fair, it’s still not a lot of time. Given how mobile users spend an average of 123 seconds on long-form stories, defined as articles that are 1,000 words or more, it’s apparent many of these readers aren’t getting to the end of longer pieces.

Overall, though, it appears mobile users try to reward long-form journalism with their time. Even on a phone or tablet, the more words there are in a piece, the more engaged readers are likely to be. And though short news pieces made up 76% of articles studied in this sample, long pieces attract roughly the same number of visitors per article.

The report did note major differences in reading habits depending on the referral source. People who arrive at an article from an internal link (after reading another story by the same media outlet) spend an average of 148 seconds reading long-form stories, while those coming from social media had the shortest attention spans, at 111 seconds.

Zeroing in on social referrals, the data showed Facebook is driving the vast majority of social traffic to both short and long stories, but its users were significantly less engaged compared to Twitter. On average, Facebook users spent 107 seconds reading long-form stories, almost half a minute less than Twitter users.

It's an epidemic of people quick scanning and sharing infotainment news. (I can't believe this is how most teens spend their full days now.)

 

[tkscz]

Which is why everyone should follow reputable sources.

That's hard to do when "reputable sources" tend to spread this info without checking as well. I've seen HuffPo and WaPo spread unchecked news. At this point, whose reputable?

 

[KernelPanic]

A lot of the onus needs to fall onto SM companies. They need to cull the amount of bots propagating this stuff.

Now I understand why Zuckerberg wants to run.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Which is why everyone should follow reputable sources.

This doesn't even help.

Linda McMahon, Trump's new Administrator of the Small Business Administration was incorrectly labeled by our reputable sources as "former CEO of WWE," "co-founder of WWE," "former Chairman," and all sorts of shit that she never did. No one corrected them, because no one except wrestling fans cared. It was pure misinformation everyone got from the same sources as everyone else spread by uninterested reputable sources and put into our shared intelligence, and it's incorrect.

 

[Kerensky]

That's hard to do when "reputable sources" tend to spread this info without checking as well. I've seen HuffPo and WaPo spread unchecked news. At this point, whose reputable?

The ones you choose to believe.

It is important not to just say "Fox is racist and sexist" and "Huffpo is degenerate and cuckbait" but to also look into what news they would try to steer and in which direction.

For example: If RT would cover a meteor strike in brazil would they be following an agenda? unlikely.
Would they do so when they would cover a NATO or CIS military excersize? probably!

The underlying idea is to see if the news provider -especially if it's state news!- has to tow a party line or if they just cover it because it's interesting.

Of course, with topics like syria, you're unlikely to ever get a straight answer, it's probably for the best to leave historians and criminal courts to make up their minds first.

 

[Ran rp]

Yeah, I've seen too many people on Facebook share news from random, questionable sources this past year. I'm not sure they even read the articles.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Corbyn's lot are dreadful for this type of thing. Absolute fantasists.

Skwakbox, Vox political, The Canary. Genuine nutters.

 

[Kyzer]

Shouldn't be a surprise, Russia's goal is destabilization. Wikileaks went after Rs in the Bush years and Ds in the Obama years.

exactly.

 

[jackissocool]

Shouldn't be a surprise, Russia's goal is destabilization. Wikileaks went after Rs in the Bush years and Ds in the Obama years.

Some things happen for reasons other than Russia

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Some things happen for reasons other than Russia

(Just being pedantic In modern history? This isn't true at all, if we count the attempt at world revolution (global communism) from the USSR and everything tied to that that we're still feeling daily. Russia's been trying to destabilize the world since day one.

 

[Kerensky]

Why didn't we just listen to him?

 

[Ac30]

That's hard to do when "reputable sources" tend to spread this info without checking as well. I've seen HuffPo and WaPo spread unchecked news. At this point, whose reputable?

RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTRIC GRID

Or maybe it was one laptop or something

Nice one there WaPo

-------------------------

I generally read NYT, BBC, The Economist and WSJ so I get a decent left/right spread, even though even the right-side spread is European right, so probably American far left

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why didn't we just listen to him?

Because he was making shit up in order to further his own political interests. He was the fake news king.

 

[Rentahamster]

Everyone likes to think they're smart enough to know the difference, but we're all vulnerable.

 

[Ac30]

Everyone likes to think they're smart enough to know the difference, but we're all vulnerable.

If anything this election has shown me that I have to be far more careful with the sources I read - it was a good reality check.

 

[Madness]

The rise of fake news is inevitable in a fake society. Nothing has integrity anymore. People are liars and project a false image. Think about the social media you consume. The peopme you follow on IG which is a false life. Think about stuff on youtube like the jenna marbles start and the things like these fake pranks fouseytube fake videos. Then look at reality television which is heavily scripted and staged and fake and how much people buy it.

Denzel Washington recently had said it best.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed."

Everything is about clicks and money. The truth doesn't matter it is just to get people to read. The news doesn't even allow critical thinking now. You have a news story that basically says 'this happened and why you should care' with 10 experts or pundits telling you why rather than let you make up your own mind.

 

[Spoit]

My personal feeling is that social media is more at fault for engineering people into no longer reading. Capitalism at its best.

6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/

NPR Pulled a Brilliant April Fools' Prank On People Who Don't Read
http://gawker.com/npr-pulled-a-brilliant-april-fools-prank-on-people-who-1557745710

The "scattered browsing" habits you see with people using their phones where they're constantly moving around between screens and not just reading is fucking us up:

Study finds people don’t read the majority of news they share on Twitter
http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-study-news-sharing/



Facebook drives more traffic to articles, but Twitter users spend more time reading them
https://qz.com/676677/facebook-driv...t-twitter-users-spend-more-time-reading-them/
It's an epidemic of people quick scanning and sharing infotainment news. (I can't believe this is how most teens spend their full days now.)

I mean, burying the lede is a time honored tradition. It's not like it's just now that people started only reading the headlines.

Though given GAF's tendency to reply to the thread titles, instead of the actual OP (much less any later posts)....

 

[erawsd]

This doesn't even help.

Linda McMahon, Trump's new Administrator of the Small Business Administration was incorrectly labeled by our reputable sources as "former CEO of WWE," "co-founder of WWE," "former Chairman," and all sorts of shit that she never did. No one corrected them, because no one except wrestling fans cared. It was pure misinformation everyone got from the same sources as everyone else spread by uninterested reputable sources and put into our shared intelligence, and it's incorrect.

Chairman isnt true but she is former CEO and credits herself as a co founder of the WWE.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

Is there even a need for left-wing fake news? All the real shit Trumps Administration pulls is enough fuel for Anti-Trump sentiment.

 

[kirblar]

Is there even a need for left-wing fake news? All the real shit Trumps Administration pulls is enough fuel for Anti-Trump sentiment.

To deligitimize institutions so that people "can't know" what's real and what's fake.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Fake "left wing" news has been around since the fucking early 2000s..

MSG, GMOs, Wars/blackwater, so much shit. Just because someones an idiot doesnt mean they belong to one side or another on the spectrum

 

[Timedog]

Is Donald Rumsfeld a lizard person?

 

[Quixzlizx]

There's more money to be had publishing fake news when it's against those in power. It's the same reason that a right wing president is doing wonders for CNN's ratings. If we had a democratic president then you'd probably see right wing fake news in larger supply.

Right now, right wing fake news won a landslide election and obliterated the opposition, their job is complete.

Fake news in a post about fake news xzibit.jpg.

 

[Sunster]

I used to watch TYT on Youtube. They always rave against the mainstream media. Encouraging people to seek out independent news media. But like, it's all full of bullshit. They say we can't trust mainstream media but God damn these independent media groups are fucking us all. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. I'm just frustrated with all this fake news shit.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Is there even a need for left-wing fake news? All the real shit Trumps Administration pulls is enough fuel for Anti-Trump sentiment.

You make the mistake in assuming that all the bigoted, nasty, racist lunatics are on the right.

 

[Puck Beaverton]

Postmodernism was right all along.

GG humans

 

[NoblesseOblige]

This is only a surprise to liberals. Everyone has been manipulating stories since the primaries.

It's not exactly a surprise to liberals. But you can buy into that since it makes you feel above it.