Trump, Polarization, Partizanship and Social Media Consumption.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It would be a dangerous assumption to assume they are deceiving people.

Not as dangerous as assuming they are a "real news" site. Do I need to point out the sort of fake news sites that helped Trump into the White House?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

So you can't come up with a single left-wing site you would call at least as politically biased as say, The National Review or judicialwatch.org , which were on the list?

And you can't come up with a left wing blog that makes things up like Infowars?

Forest for the trees, dude.

Swing a cat.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

So you can't come up with a single left-wing site you would call at least as politically biased as say, The National Review or judicialwatch.org , which were on the list?

And you can't come up with a left wing blog that makes things up like Infowars?

Forest for the trees, dude.

Swing a cat.

Name one. Just one. Why is that so hard?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Examples of what?
I already explained that the criteria are junk, so why would I try to fit stories to them?

Because you said you could. But first you might want to explain why you think they are junk. Let me post them again so you can critique them, explaining why they are "vague" or "too broad."

•Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently presentopinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

Next, you can explain what criteria you recommend to someone who wants to tell how reliable a news item is.

Still waiting.

•Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

• Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.

• Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.

• Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently presentopinion and commentary essays as news.

• Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.


Very nice description of CNN if I do say so myself....well done.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

So you can't come up with a single left-wing site you would call at least as politically biased as say, The National Review or judicialwatch.org , which were on the list?

And you can't come up with a left wing blog that makes things up like Infowars?

Forest for the trees, dude.

Swing a cat.

Name one. Just one. Why is that so hard?

Define "blog site" and I might be able to help.

But isn't this ATS, a conspiracy forum (mostly) and isn't conspiracy part and partial to rhetoric, spin, hyperbole, omission and alt info?

Members should be more informed than the gen pop despite being the general population.

Journalism is dead, as Hannity says.

So everyone picks their liars it seems.

I've learned to read between the lines and listen.

a reply to: RickinVa

This is not the Mud Pit. Instead of a cheap shot, please provide examples that show that CNN meets these criteria.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What are you doing to help people cut through the lies?

a reply to: Painterz

They’re playing with different facts, and they think they have the inside scoop on conspiracies."

As a result, he said it appears 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."

Lol how you expect this not to turn into a mud pit thread I don't know because this is about as inflammatory as it gets. One could also make the exact same argument about the left, they constantly harp on about Russian conspiracies despite a total lack of evidence and nothing coming out of the extensive investigations... yet they continue to believe, they convince themselves entirely that Trump must have colluded with Russia because they don't want to accept any other explanation. And even if they rely only on MSM news they will still be fed lies and sensationalist rhetoric, and in fact I would argue if the MSM is the only place they get their news then they are even more likely to be swayed by false propaganda and rhetoric, just because it was delivered to them in a neat professional package, that doesn't make it any less insidious or deceptive.

many of the websites listed i have never even heard of. Not all fake news is bad. I fell for hillary being indicted just before the election, this motivated me to place a $500 bet on Trump. I will admit i also fell for the hillary poopy pants meme, i thought she really did have a poo stain on her pants. It was an honest mistake i made after viewing dozens of wallmart (shartinmart) memes.

a reply to: DJW001

I already did explain fully why the criteria are junk, but you choose not to listen.
I even took just one question from many that are left unanswered by the criteria, which you ignored.

Let's go a step further, though:

•Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.

It's quite obvious, apart from the obvious lack of specifics which I have highlighted, why the above criteria is junk. The last line effectively says that as long as a lie is not debunked, you're free and clear of the criteria. This means that a news outlet can say anything they want, and force their readers/detractors to prove they are lying - instead of them proving they are telling the truth, as it should be. If you make a claim - prove it. It's fake news if not proven and still published unless it comes with a clear disclaimer to make sure the reader knows it is gossip and nothing more. CNN, for example, are excellent at driving a narrative based on innuendo and unnamed sources, rarely offering any proof. When they are caught lying, they sometimes (but not always) post a retraction with MUCH less fanfare than their original BS. Most of the time they rely on their ramblings being unprovable as lies, so they just let their speculations stand as 'news' and the social media debate rages and they get clicks - all part of the design of their fake news machine.

I have the perfect criteria for news items in today's environment - NONE of them should be believed on their own. It's simple and very effective.
If you want to know the truth about any issue you have to dig a bit deeper than swallowing whole the ramblings of sites like Infowars, Breitbart, CNN, MSNBC, et al. They are all biased and they all drive fake news debates and flame wars on social media.

If you want to be misled then feel free to swallow whole studies that claim the issue of fake news is only on one side of the debate. It's easy and suits confirmation bias very well, so it's also comfortable for you. Your choice.

Let's take a real-world example. You fell hook line and sinker for the 'news' peddled by CNN and MSNBC daily that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians to fix the election. You've peddled it yourself in 1,000's of posts. Millions of twitter messages have been posted on the subject with arguments raging back and forth. There is, however, zero evidence that Trump did anything of the sort.

The study in the OP has completely discounted the social media activity relating to CNN and MSNBC pushing the Russian collusion narrative daily - as such the study is, like I said, junk - and a real shame for a once great institution.