Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

An interesting article on the rise of fake news, and some facts that run counter to the stereotypes typically associated with the phenomenon.

Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing? That's almost as dumb as the 'deplorables' argument.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing? That's almost as dumb as the 'deplorables' argument.

This. Anyone with a facebook friend gullible enough to fall for clickbait knows that there's plenty of left-wing clickbait garbage out there. Farming stupid people for advertising money knows no ideological principles.

On second look, the article uses Snopes as a fact-checking source when that site is focused on urban legends rather than politics. I think the assessment that fake news is exclusively right-wing and poor only comes from those who frequent left-wing fake news sources, ironically enough. For the reasonable, the stereotype is that fake news is majority right-wing, not exclusively. Something that was backed up by a rather intensive study done by BBC as I recall.

I read that report from the BBC mentioned in the first post. The "study" is an incredibly small sample, so may not have statistical validity, compared with the much larger sample that Buzzfeed did last year, which is the one you are thinking of.

However fake news is a social behaviour, so it could easily have changed due to changing circumstances. We shall have to wait for more evidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
On second look, the article uses Snopes as a fact-checking source when that site is focused on urban legends rather than politics.

Snopes has debunked/confirmed all manner of subjects, including political stuff, for as long as I can remember.

Both sides have fake news. It isn't new, either. I actually knew a guy who worked for a left-wing 'news' page that quit because they would sit around and find ways to twist data and misrepresent it, or use words that easily fooled people. I have that relative that falls for all the fake right-wing news, too.

My favorite line is 'some sources say'. That doesn't mean anything, that source could be a hobo under the bridge. If you can't cite your source, you don't have one as far as I'm concerned.

I read news articles exclusively to find their sources. I look at the information they got. The overwhelming majority of everything else is someone spewing their opinion into the article.

And fortunately, journobloggers are the new norm and pass as legitimate journalists, when most of them are just outrage fetishists.

The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

Well, the right wing sites are having to compete with the White House when it comes to misleading the american people.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same people writing the fake articles for both sides.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

The left wing was just as bad as before. It hasn't been 'disproportionate', it's been about the same. The pages come and go, and most of them aren't 'news', they're journo-bloggers repeating internet rumors... and they're either completely incompetent and don't fact-check, or willfully lying (and not good at it). Either way, this is why I believe journalism should come with accreditation, and lying journalists should be legally required to display their credibility rating on every article they write.

Do yourself a favor, though- go look at the 'fake news' pages for both sides. Go look at the facebook pages of a different name, owned by the same people that produce that fake news and distribute it. You know who I'm talking about, too.

Go have a look at how many people from an older generation are on there. These clickbait sites thrive on misleading headlines, obfuscating and skewing the facts under a pile of opinion and hyperbole- and many of our seniors aren't very good at fact-checking. I help my mom and aunts with it all the time. Some of the things I've had to teach them:

-Just because you agree, does not make it true.

-Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it false.

-A 'political analyst's opinion' is not concrete fact.

-A lack of a source makes it no different than a tailgate yarn over a beer. Take it with a grain of salt.

-Another blog is not a source. Another article written by the same author is not a source. If the source-hunt seems like a circle jerk, that's probably intentional and you should probably not care.

-CNN isn't always lying, any more than FoxNews is always lying. Yes, they have a bias. That does not change an event that took place, or the data that led to a finding. That is all you should care about.

-'Some sources' are not sources, unless those sources are named.

-Before you form an opinion after reading an article, find another one from the opposing bias and read it.

-Learn how the government works before you let some article lead you to believe that 'Bush did the war in Iraq', 'Obama is gonna ban guns', or 'Bernie has a tax plan that will change everything when he is President', or 'Thank you Obama for increasing employment'. The journalists know how the government works, but they are counting on you being ignorant.

-If all else fails, take a sheet of paper and draw a line down the center, write the key points the left wants to make, and key points the right wants to make. Most of the time, there's a reasonable position or concern somewhere between the two, but 'reasonable' doesn't sell.

-If the news page's sponsors are selling penis enlargement, instant weight loss, or specifically-targeted ads based on your google searches... there's a reason that no self-respecting company wants to use them to advertise.

-Chances are if the headline reads like some hyper-emotional outrage, it's probably full of opinion with very little substantiated fact.

-Read how the article uses certain key phrases: "Right-winger" or "Leftists" are generally used like slurs in articles with an extreme bias, and most extremely biased news sites tend to lie by omission or skew the facts to support their narrative.

My favorite news stories?

"Right-wing politicians restrict welfare spending so poor children cannot have cookies and birthday cakes!" Oh, the horror. Oh, wailing and gnashing of teeth, why do RETHUGLIKKKANS hate the poor so much? Oh, wait. This was in specific areas.. where Child Protective Services and Social Workers reported schoolchildren being malnourished, some reportedly only eating a meal once a day at school... because their parents used their entire Electronic Benefits Transfer cards (replacement for Food Stamps) on junk food, lobster, steak- and had no food beyond a week or so, resulting in their children being malnourished. And they didn't remove the ability to buy 'fun food', they just made it so only a certain amount of the Food Stamp money could be spent on those items, because idiots didn't take care of their damned children.

"Liberals want to cut deployment pay for our troops overseas during a war!" Oh, those pesky liberals- they hate the troops so hard, they could care less when they get pay cuts and they'll spit on them when they return home, the fiends! Those hippie vermin! Oh, wait. This was just a system put in place to keep scummy high brass from going overseas for the last week of one month and the first week of the next, just to walk around and shake hands and give useless speeches... and collect 2 months of deployment pay. Probably the best idea ever, because I can't tell you how many times we had a 'guest speaker' at some NCO Professional Development that was some Sergeant Major over there for 2 weeks pretending to be useful to the war effort.

Have an exalt sir, I chuckled reading through the two examples specifically

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Have an exalt sir, I chuckled reading through the two examples specifically

Thank you. I included one of each, because while I lean to the right on a lot of issues... I mostly believe that both sides of the bias in the media are equally despicable and awful, and deserving of ridicule. When people tend to think it's the 'right wing' or the 'left wing' that's the worst about it, I automatically write them off as a cultist that's too blinded by their ideology to listen to reason.

I've also been called a fascist, because after seeing how these sorts of people are... I believe a mandatory test to demonstrate your understanding of the government should be required before you are allowed to cast a vote for anything.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Have an exalt sir, I chuckled reading through the two examples specifically

Thank you. I included one of each, because while I lean to the right on a lot of issues... I mostly believe that both sides of the bias in the media are equally despicable and awful, and deserving of ridicule. When people tend to think it's the 'right wing' or the 'left wing' that's the worst about it, I automatically write them off as a cultist that's too blinded by their ideology to listen to reason.

I've also been called a fascist, because after seeing how these sorts of people are... I believe a mandatory test to demonstrate your understanding of the government should be required before you are allowed to cast a vote for anything.

Honestly if everyone voted the two sides would cancel out and moderates would be the deciding factor, unfortunately that's far from the case.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing? That's almost as dumb as the 'deplorables' argument.

Good question, who was claiming that it was only a right-wing poor thing?

The fever pitch of inane propaganda in general on all sides, left, right, center, up, down, blue, red, green, purple etc has been ratcheted up rather intensely of late, and the worst part is that most of it is really just revenue generation rather than actual issue advocacy. Politics is becoming bigger and bigger money as limits on finance have been removed and social media and the internet has made it easier than ever to reach people and generate buzz at a grassroots level, while revenue generation through micropayments has exploded and offered viability to things that otherwise would not be.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


Thank you. I included one of each, because while I lean to the right on a lot of issues... I mostly believe that both sides of the bias in the media are equally despicable and awful, and deserving of ridicule. When people tend to think it's the 'right wing' or the 'left wing' that's the worst about it, I automatically write them off as a cultist that's too blinded by their ideology to listen to reason.

You, sir, have your head screwed on properly. Even though I lean the opposite way on many issues, I feel the same way about the propaganda pieces from both sides.
Have an exalt!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing? That's almost as dumb as the 'deplorables' argument.

Good question, who was claiming that it was only a right-wing poor thing?

Uhm... I don't know, that is the premise of the article you posted so I was hoping you knew.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing? That's almost as dumb as the 'deplorables' argument.

Good question, who was claiming that it was only a right-wing poor thing?

Uhm... I don't know, that is the premise of the article you posted so I was hoping you knew.

So if you knew that was the premise of the article then evidently the "Who was claiming that fake news was only a right-wing poor thing?" is already addressed, but for the purposes of clarity;
""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."

I was asking where the stereotype was coming from, since I hadn't actually encountered anyone making that claim. Seriously dude it was just a question no need to get aggravated about it.

I remember when I was younger the news over-emphasizing or exaggerating things.

These days a substantial amount of news seems to be composed of outright lies, always politically motivated. I've gotten to the point where in order to find actual information, I have to read news from both extremes, then try and piece together facts from each. It is truly a pain in the rear.

One example, one day I was listening to Mark Levin on the radio. That evening, there was an article on yahoo about his show that day... not one word of it was accurate, it literally made up fake lines that Levin never said.

...and before anyone asks, no I do not remember what day that was. Honestly Mark Levin says so much of the same thing every day that it's hard to tell his shows apart.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I was asking where the stereotype was coming from, since I hadn't actually encountered anyone making that claim. Seriously dude it was just a question no need to get aggravated about it.

Shortly after the election there was a study done comparing the top three left and right sites (based on number of social media followers). In that particular study, the right sites had significantly more "fake news" than the left. That's the basic gist of it, anyway, I'm a bit fuzzy on details.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I was asking where the stereotype was coming from, since I hadn't actually encountered anyone making that claim. Seriously dude it was just a question no need to get aggravated about it.

Shortly after the election there was a study done comparing the top three left and right sites (based on number of social media followers). In that particular study, the right sites had significantly more "fake news" than the left. That's the basic gist of it, anyway, I'm a bit fuzzy on details.

The article was addressing an apparent stereotype that only right-wing sites had fake news, which isn't a claim I have ever encountered beyond their left-wing equivalent. Given that a stereotype is popularized by nature I am curious as to where the article was getting the idea from, since it seems only a small minority of people hold that view.

 Cothonian wrote:
I remember when I was younger the news over-emphasizing or exaggerating things.

These days a substantial amount of news seems to be composed of outright lies, always politically motivated. I've gotten to the point where in order to find actual information, I have to read news from both extremes, then try and piece together facts from each. It is truly a pain in the rear.

One example, one day I was listening to Mark Levin on the radio. That evening, there was an article on yahoo about his show that day... not one word of it was accurate, it literally made up fake lines that Levin never said.

...and before anyone asks, no I do not remember what day that was. Honestly Mark Levin says so much of the same thing every day that it's hard to tell his shows apart.

I too find it irritating. The major sources for 'news' are so unreliable that I can't believe anything they say with out researching it first, which kind-of negates the point of even listening to them at all.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

The left wing was just as bad as before. It hasn't been 'disproportionate', it's been about the same.

Except that is contrary to what the article states. It shows an increase in left-wing fake news in the last weeks, from an agency with a lot more at stake in this game that either you or me or anyone with dumb facebook friends.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Except that is contrary to what the article states. It shows an increase in left-wing fake news in the last weeks, from an agency with a lot more at stake in this game that either you or me or anyone with dumb facebook friends.

Snopes. A dude and his soon-to-be ex-wife.

With some questionable research and behaviors in the past.

The article shows me no numbers, it just says 'in the last weeks'. Compared to what- the two weeks prior? The year? A month?

No data set, no credibility.

From the article: "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."

There you have it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same people writing the fake articles for both sides.

Well, it sometimes is - or at least the same people spread these news on their websites for advertisement revenues. The Macedonian guy in the Wired article below can't produce good enough English so he copies articles but I'm sure some of his fellows make their own. He also describes how he'd use a few of his maybe 200 false Facebook profiles (10 cents for a Russian profile, 50 cents for a USA profile so a cheap investment) to bump the articles. And why not? Average monthly salary in Macedonia is 371€, someone with ads on their website(s) can make 1000$+ a month, and he was probably unemployed anyway so he had time.

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

Didn't this used to be called "yellow journalism"?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Except that is contrary to what the article states. It shows an increase in left-wing fake news in the last weeks, from an agency with a lot more at stake in this game that either you or me or anyone with dumb facebook friends.

Snopes. A dude and his soon-to-be ex-wife.

With some questionable research and behaviors in the past.

The article shows me no numbers, it just says 'in the last weeks'. Compared to what- the two weeks prior? The year? A month?

No data set, no credibility.

From the article: "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."

There you have it.

Aye, the cat does all of the serious in-depth research. All those other two human flesh mounds position is to keep the cat box clean, and the feed bowl full.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

Yep, it's quite interesting to see an article which says left wing fake news is now catching up to right wing fake news, and see people here read it as evidence that left and right wing fake news have always been equal. Goes to show, it isn't just about the source you read, but also your comprehension and a person's willingness to see a story as it really is, not just how it can slot in to your prior assumptions.

As to why left wing news is now catching up, I'd say it is probably a function of voter discontent, which is a product of being out of power, and how unhappy you are with the current president. For 8 years Republicans were the angrier lot because they either had no power or split power, and they really didn't like Obama. That translated to a more partisan outlook, a greater willingness to create, read and share stories that vindicated that anger, even if they were made up. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it's Democrats who are out of power and who hate the president. So they're increasingly willing to buy in to fake news.

It'll be interesting to see if, in the next few years liberal fake news overtakes conservative fake news. It's possible, I guess, but there are also other factors at play, cultural factors and how people approach politics, that makes me doubt it will ever be as simple as the 'both sides' narrative likes to make it out to be.

I suspect a part of is simply the fake news companies figuring out that there's a market to exploit. Why post only right-wing clickbait when you can post left-wing clickbait too, and get twice the advertising revenue?

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of the new article is that both sides used to have fake news in disproportion, (the right wing had more, and worse) but now the left wing is starting to generate just as much.

Yep, it's quite interesting to see an article which says left wing fake news is now catching up to right wing fake news, and see people here read it as evidence that left and right wing fake news have always been equal. Goes to show, it isn't just about the source you read, but also your comprehension and a person's willingness to see a story as it really is, not just how it can slot in to your prior assumptions.

As to why left wing news is now catching up, I'd say it is probably a function of voter discontent, which is a product of being out of power, and how unhappy you are with the current president. For 8 years Republicans were the angrier lot because they either had no power or split power, and they really didn't like Obama. That translated to a more partisan outlook, a greater willingness to create, read and share stories that vindicated that anger, even if they were made up. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it's Democrats who are out of power and who hate the president. So they're increasingly willing to buy in to fake news.

It'll be interesting to see if, in the next few years liberal fake news overtakes conservative fake news. It's possible, I guess, but there are also other factors at play, cultural factors and how people approach politics, that makes me doubt it will ever be as simple as the 'both sides' narrative likes to make it out to be.

I think a not-insignificant factor is that stories which would be fake news about anyone else are credible with Trump. "Obama possibly colluded with Russia during election" sounds like a fake news article from past years, yet is very much real news about Trump. This makes further stories along the same lines seem more likely even if they aren't true.