Trump supporters share more fake news than anyone else, study shows

[ABX]

On Facebook, extreme conservatives share more junk news than all other audiences put together

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.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supporters-share-more-fake-news-junk-news-oxford-study-a8199056.html

[LMAO]

How are they defining “fake news ?”  The president decries any news that’s negative towards him as fake news. Is it possible this study might be guilty of the same thing?

I have a SIL who is very liberal that, when losing a debate with me, tells me to quit reading fake news sites. When asks what fake news sites is she referring to and what fake news does she speak of.....nothing.

In summary, how much news is legitimate fake news verses news we don’t want to hear?

[ABX]

How are they defining “fake news ?”  The president decries any news that’s negative towards him as fake news. Is it possible this study might be guilty of the same thing?

I have a SIL who is very liberal that, when losing a debate with me, tells me to quit reading fake news sites. When asks what fake news sites is she referring to and what fake news does she speak of.....nothing.

In summary, how much news is fake news verses news we don’t want to hear?

There is questionable, there is propaganda click bait types (think Breitbart/Gateway Pundit), then there is overtly fake. It usually is pretty easy to tell the difference. I still see on a daily basis, people sharing overtly fake news stories from overtly fake sites. Not bias, but completely made up stuff from known fake news purveyors (many out of Macedonia).

Luckily this site is pretty good, the people here have better discernment so it hasn't infected us much on the main topics.

[LMAO]

There is questionable, there is propaganda click bait types (think Breitbart/Gateway Pundit), then there is overtly fake. It usually is pretty easy to tell the difference. I still see on a daily basis, people sharing overtly fake news stories from overtly fake sites. Not bias, but completely made up stuff from known fake news purveyors (many out of Macedonia).

Luckily this site is pretty good, the people here have better discernment so it hasn't infected us much on the main topics.

I admit to haven’t read Breitbart since Andrew died so I’m rusty as far as they go. However, as the case of my SIL, she uses the term fake news as easily as the current CIC which made me question, but not necessarily doubt, the study

[Frank Cannon]

There is questionable, there is propaganda click bait types (think Breitbart/Gateway Pundit), then there is overtly fake. It usually is pretty easy to tell the difference. I still see on a daily basis, people sharing overtly fake news stories from overtly fake sites. Not bias, but completely made up stuff from known fake news purveyors (many out of Macedonia).

Luckily this site is pretty good, the people here have better discernment so it hasn't infected us much on the main topics.

So the Washington Post running a fabricated story a while back about Trump about to fire Mueller isn't fake news because it is the Washington Post and not Gateway Pundit.......gotcha.

[ABX]

So the Washington Post running a fabricated story a while back about Trump about to fire Mueller isn't fake news because it is the Washington Post and not Gateway Pundit.......gotcha.

Read that again. I said they weren't fake. I was distinguishing clicking type sites which are often accused of being fake, with actual fake news sites.

Oh, and even Fox reported Trump was planning to fire him..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/25/trump-ordered-mueller-fired-then-backed-off-ny-times-reports.html

[ABX]

..also, even Breitbart reported Trump had almost fired Muller.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/25/report-trump-ordered-firing-mueller-june-backed-off/

Trump called out WAPO for 'fake news' because he had to have that enemy in the media people could personify (pick a target, isolate, personify it)  but even his favorable right wing sources, including the one run by his chief of staff, reported the same thing.

[truth_seeker]

Why trust Oxford and the Independent.uk  ???

Why trust Abraxas ?? Why trust Facebook ??  Why trust NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc. ??

[WingNot]

Why trust Oxford and the Independent.uk  ???

Why trust Abraxas ?? Why trust Facebook ??  Why trust NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc. ??

Why ask why?

[ABX]

Why trust Oxford and the Independent.uk  ???

Why trust Abraxas ?? Why trust Facebook ??  Why trust NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc. ??

You shouldn't trust anything. You should verify and validate.

[Sanguine]

You shouldn't trust anything. You should verify and validate.

And, we on the right shouldn't just assume because it's not flattering that it's fake, or it is something we want to believe that it is true.  I think we are less susceptible to fake news than the left, but not immune.

[ABX]

And, we on the right shouldn't just assume because it's not flattering that it's fake, or it is something we want to believe that it is true.  I think we are less susceptible to fake news than the left, but not immune.

That's a good thing about this site. For most things at least, we can discuss it versus other sites, take it as either gospel or fake depending on if we agree or not (and call the zots out if you dare disagree with the orthodoxy).

[austingirl]

This is not my experience. Just look at FB with all the false, uninformed liberal memes.

[LMAO]

You shouldn't trust anything. You should verify and validate.

Bears repeating.

 It’s our human nature, however, to like and believe information that reaffirms our world view and mistrust anything that challenges it. That’s why liberals automatically  dismiss FOX News and many on our side do the same with CNN

[the_doc]

How are they defining “fake news ?” 

Probably anything that Snopes doesn't confirm.  Probably everything tweeted by Qanon (all of which seems legit to me, by the way).

Maybe misleading headlines (common, even in alt.right circles, alas).   

[Frank Cannon]

..also, even Breitbart reported Trump had almost fired Muller.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/25/report-trump-ordered-firing-mueller-june-backed-off/

LOL. That was Brietbart citing NY Slimes citing WaPo on the piece that ended up being a lie.

[LMAO]

When it comes to politics, all news has a bias. If you start from that point, you become a better consumer of news....IMO

[TomSea]

I agree with the above, why trust Oxford?  That would be like trusting Berkeley, maybe I'll say, I assume Oxford has a liberal bias. If the article cites Breitbart and Infowars, did they look at the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, PoliticsUSA and Media Matters,  etc.

Conservatives are possibly more active on the internet, Breitbart and Infowars are fairly big websites I gather, at least Breitbart, Infowars has little credibility with me. It depends on how they made this study.

Pizzagate, things like that, undoubtedly are bad news.

[TomSea]

Conservatives have long gone to talk radio and the internet where, presumably, liberal control of the media is not as dominant per CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS are. Now, I don't want to totally put down these other news sites, maybe CNN deserves it but I can still find good stories.

[DB]

This is obviously a fake study.

"Extreme conservatives" don't support Trump. Populist do. They are not the same thing by a long shot.

So this "study" starts out with a false assumption rendering its results useless short of fake news peddling.