Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-right-wing-thing dept.

Fake News Sharing in US is a Right-Wing Thing, Says Study

A study by researchers at Oxford University concluded that sharing fake and junk news is much more prevalent amongst Trump supporters and other people with hard right-wing tendencies.

From the Guardian:

The study, from the university's "computational propaganda project", looked at the most significant sources of "junk news" shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump's first State of the Union address this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why.

"On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.

Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump's first State of the Union Address. Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook's public pages.

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/polarization-partisanship-and-junk-news/

[Ed. note: page is loading very slowly; try a direct link to the actual report (pdf). --martyb]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:33AM (68 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:33AM (#634824)

    I mean, "Fake news" is a nebulous concept in of itself, because it seems to be the new term for "propaganda", which is what pretty much every single news outlet is, on all sides. They are selling you a story, usually tied into whatever biases you hold.

    So, if you define that the majority of what sources republicans consider as news "fake", then yes, majority of republicans will be sharing "fake news".

    However if you were to define that the majority of what democrats use as sources "fake", you can make a study saying that the majority of democrats will be sharing "fake news"

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:48AM (41 children)

      by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:48AM (#634826)

      Yes yes, there is no such thing as objective reality, Trump is no more a liar than any other politician, and pigs have been able to fly for decades provided you respect my idea of a pig.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:28PM (26 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:28PM (#634845) Journal

        there is no such thing as objective reality,

        Well, there is one. Votes are sold to the highest bidder. That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:33PM (25 children)

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:33PM (#634991) Journal

          Votes are sold to the highest bidder.
          That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

          And there you have another example of Fake News. Not even 5 posts deep into this thread.

          I've been doing this crazy voting thing about 50 years, and I've never met anyone paid to vote, offer me money to vote, offer anyone I know money to vote, heard of any bids. But apparently you have. Please be specific. Name state, place, election-race, and how much was offered. Not expecting names, because then the guilty might reach out and kill you. Because that happens every day right?

          Lets face it, you've made a fake assertion.
          On a Fake Issue.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:38PM

            by Wootery (2341) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:38PM (#634994)

            Cynicism is edgy and makes you look wise. Why ruin the guy's day?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:40PM (#634996)

            Cluebat: you're not the voter.

            Laws are passed by votes sold to the highest bidder.

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (13 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:32PM (#635051) Journal

            :-) Nice try... strawman, right? but that's not how it works, and of course you know that. As the old saying goes: Everybody votes for their wallet. And lately there is a high level of antipathy to match. But one way or another, people are in it for the money. The politicians only reflect that, or they wouldn't be so successful. A single reelection says everything about the people that vote for them.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:13PM (12 children)

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:13PM (#635202) Journal

              You're the clown who said:

              That goes for the voters as much as it does for the crooked politicians they reelect.

              Stop trying to make it about something I said.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:35PM (11 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:35PM (#635250) Journal

                Yes, I said that because it's true. Your silly deflection does not apply. Crooked politicians don't just magically occupy the office for 20 years or more. It takes votes. And those votes have to be bought, not with cash, but a mere promise, and illusion of future prosperity through austerity.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:42AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:42AM (#635345)

                  > It takes votes. And those votes have to be bought, not with cash, but a mere promise

                  Uh, isn't that how this whole "democracy" thing works? Politicians make promises, people vote for them based on those promises. Crooked or not, the process is exactly the same.

                  You're not speaking against corruption or whatever, you're speaking against the very idea of democracy :/

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:10PM (#635569) Journal
                    I think the problem here is not that politicians make promises, but too many voters don't hold them accountable for not following through on those promises. There is after all a fair number of people who will vote merely because a politician is willing to pretend to care about a single issue (both sides of the abortion debate are a notorious example of that).
                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:11PM

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:11PM (#635620) Journal

                    No, I'm saying democracy is only as good as its participants. Like everything else, garbage in-garbage out. People who complain about their (re)elected representatives are being very silly. Maybe they are blinded and confused by the clarity of the count. I certainly cannot share their feelings in light of the very process at their disposal that that can change things overnight should the desire ever arise.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:58AM (7 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:58AM (#635452) Journal

                  and illusion of future prosperity through austerity.

                  You had me to this point. Austerity hasn't been a notable component of such promises or the subsequent spending.

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @01:29PM (6 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @01:29PM (#635489) Journal

                    Austerity has been part of the agenda since Nixon. Your other politicians might call it "reform" of some kind, which could explain the confusion, but it is austerity.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @04:09PM (5 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @04:09PM (#635540) Journal

                      Your other politicians might call it "reform" of some kind, which could explain the confusion, but it is austerity.

                      Sorry, that's not austerity. Austerity is a recent buzzword for policies forcibly imposed on the economically more dysfunctional countries of Europe such as Greece and Cyprus. And fiscal conservatism has been a thing much longer than Nixon.

                      I would classify this whole mess of issues as voting for promises rather than actions. Promises are very cheap to deliver.

                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @04:57PM (4 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @04:57PM (#635562) Journal

                        I would classify this whole mess of issues as voting for promises

                        Yes, voters sell their votes for a promise, and they are told to reduce their expectations so the same promise can be made for reelection.

                        "fiscal conservatism" and "austerity" may differ by degree, but not in principle. One just makes the other appear more palatable. What happened in Greece and Cyprus was outright theft of government assets by the banks, pretty much what other "free trade" agreements are doing to the rest of the world.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:31PM (3 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:31PM (#635596) Journal

                          Yes, voters sell their votes for a promise, and they are told to reduce their expectations so the same promise can be made for reelection.

                          Ok, what is supposed to be the problem with that? Sounds like the expectations are made more realistic in that case.

                          What happened in Greece and Cyprus was outright theft of government assets by the banks

                          And if it had gone the other way, it would have been theft of bank assets by those governments. Those governments have been borrowing money for a long time in bad faith and the banks had been lending in a similar bad faith. The best solution would have been for both sides to take a haircut. Have those countries go into austerity but with a portion of the loans forgiven at the expense of the banks.

                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @05:43PM (2 children)

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @05:43PM (#635603) Journal

                            Ok, what is supposed to be the problem with that?

                            I am merely pointing out why corrupt politicians keep their jobs. It is the voters who keep them there for their own personal reasons, yet try to pass blame when things go wrong. That is the objective reality that was sarcastically being 'denied' that I was commenting on, and some people seem to have some doubts, and I am asking why they would deny some of the most obvious things about nature.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @06:19PM (1 child)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:19PM (#635629) Journal
                              And I'm merely pointing out that managing expectations is a trait of an effective politician not necessarily a corrupt one.
                              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:49PM

                                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:49PM (#635647) Journal

                                Well, you're right. In absolute terms, "corruption" is a poor choice of words, taken from a non-neutral viewpoint. Maybe I sent a mixed message. I am really targeting the people who complain about politicians and the "system" in general. It is no more "corrupt" than they are.

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:43PM (#635259) Journal

            I've been doing this crazy voting thing about 50 years, and I've never met anyone paid to vote, offer me money to vote, offer anyone I know money to vote, heard of any bids.

            I have. Anyone who votes to protect funds they receive from government, be it health care payouts, Social Security, a government funding stream, etc has been successfully paid to vote.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:55AM (#635349)

              Oh please, spare me. That's 100% of population. Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest. Some vote for social programs, some vote for tax cuts and military, some vote for religion...

              What's your problem anyway? I though self-interest was the holy grail of you Randian assholes. When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair? Boo-fucking-hoo.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM (#635599) Journal

                Of course people vote based on their (perceived) self interest.

                The point here is that the future of their democracy is also in their self interest. But these programs create a conflict of interest where people are voting for the swag rather than a well operating and low corruption government.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:00PM (#635616) Journal

                When it's other people's self-interest, now it's suddenly immoral and unfair?

                You should try to understand libertarianism first. The problem here isn't that other people have self-interest, but instead that they are using the power of government to further their self-interest at the expense of many other people and the future of their country. Libertarians don't do that.

                For example, we have the sorry spectacle of a considerable portion of the developing world sacrificing the future of its youth just so the older generations can have a more comfortable retirement.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @07:01AM (#635428) Journal

              Just because you have voted to protect your government contract, that does not mean everyone with a government contract does the same, khallow. Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost. So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled. Affirmative action, y'all? So, who are your relatives, khallow? We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

              --
              #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:52AM (#635449) Journal

                Some actually provide the bid for service at the highest quality and the lowest cost.

                Sounds like you've been hitting the pixie dust a bit much. But sure, I agree, there are situations where there is only one bidder and hence, trivially, the bid is highest quality and lowest cost available. It also happens to be lowest quality and highest cost, but hey, it's not my money anymore once the taxman taketh.

                So who is your uncle that keeps you on the government tit? My god, I have known so many of these types, people with DOD positions, because they were related to high ranking officers, even though they were mentally deficient, much like the aforementioned khallow, and Ethanol_fueled.

                And I thought I was triggered! I'm also still on the fence as to whether you are EF or not.

                We all know you could not have gotten your job based on your native intelligence.

                Interesting that you have moved on to purely imaginary personal attacks. Very classy.

                I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need. Who will waste our time in the future once you're gone? Does that mean EF will leave us too?

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11AM (#635456) Journal

                  I remain concerned that you'll leave us in our hour of need.

                  You have been saying this for years now, khallow. It is about as accurate at your other predictions, and as truthful as your assertions in this particular instance, which, by the way, is way off topic. Personal attacks? You weasel, you.

                  --
                  #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 09 2018, @05:46PM

            by Freeman (732) on Friday February 09 2018, @05:46PM (#635605) Journal

            The biggest thing I heard about from Liberal voters when Obama was running and in Office was how great "Obamacare" would be. It was going to give everyone health insurance and would reduce costs! Very soon after "Obamacare" went it effect, magically we had a significant bump Up in cost of health insurance. I also didn't hear much touting of how awesome "Obamacare" was from them, either.

            You can say, No one offers Me money to vote, but you would be wrong. The Politicans Promise, better wages, hand-outs to the needy, etc. Yes, I support helping those in need. No, I don't think we should make it so that the Only way to get by for some people is to have more children, so they can get that extra money. You know, so they can spend it on needed things like Cigarettes and Beer.

            Sure, you're not literally paid money by some shady guy in an alley for your vote. That doesn't mean politicians haven't been buying votes.

            The most interesting example I can think of is Davy Crockett. When he was running against someone, he would talk first, then invite everyone out to the bar, before the other guy could speak. Quite nearly, literally, buying their votes. Apparently, this wasn't a novelty in the era, either. https://johncashon.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/davy-crockett-and-the-coon-skin-trick/comment-page-1/ [wordpress.com]

            --
            "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 09 2018, @06:15PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday February 09 2018, @06:15PM (#635623) Journal

            Lets face it, you've made a fake assertion.

            Did I really [jsonline.com]??

            Gee! I feel so very sorry!

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:20PM (2 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:20PM (#634946)

        there is no such thing as objective reality,

        1. Some people say the sun rises in the East. Others say in the West. The truth lies probably somewhere in between. Or, we should give both opinions equal weight.

        2. There are no absolutes! Absolutely no absolutes! So you can't be sure of anything.

        3. There are people who believe he earth is flat. They are deeply misguided and wrong. In reality the earth is a disc with mountains and valleys, a non-smooth (eg, non-flat) surface. The sun, moon and stars revolve in a circle above the disk. Gravity is an illusion also. It is actually acceleration at 9.8 meters / second ^ 2. The disc is on the back of an infinite stack of turtles. The final turtle of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket at 9.8 m/s^2 using a perpetual motion machine.

        --
        ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:42PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:42PM (#634998)

          YES! This is why we need the certainty of religious doctrine.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:29PM (#635094)

            I sense you are sarcastic, so you might instead settle for the comforting certainty of Fox News. (Surely that isn't religious doctrine.)

            Apart from that, there certainly do seem to be objective facts in the world.

            --
            ALL LIABILITY IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH THAT RESULTS FROM READING THE SOURCE CODE.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:55PM (9 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:55PM (#635013) Homepage

        there is no such thing as objective reality

        It should be pointed out that that idea is and has always been a friend to every totalitarian regime that has ever existed. For instance, the Soviets functioned on that for decades with completely fraudulent reporting about everything and science based on nonsense like Lamarckism.

        There is objective reality. You can determine its condition and its rules by science, careful study, reason, etc. And if you don't, you will be susceptible to liars everywhere.

        --
        A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (6 children)

          by meustrus (4961) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {surtsuem}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (#635182)

          Please excuse me for going off-topic here, but I'm rather curious about something.

          I dove into some biology articles following a previous story about epigenetics, and found myself confused about Lamarckism. Not as to whether it had any merit; I am not a biologist and do not claim to make any judgements as to the merit of one man's work over another's.

          No, what was confusing was the extent to which the authors wanted to make damned sure nobody thought that epigenetics even smelled like Lamarckism. Given that the overall summary of it was the idea that individual organisms make adaptations to their environments, and that those adaptations are heritable, all that I can assume is that I'm missing something.

          I know genetics doesn't work like that, and that adaptive pressure applied to generations of individuals with randomized collections of phenomes is an explanation that better matches reality. But if we can inherit behavioral, social, and apparently even gene methylation patterns, how is that fundamentally not Lamarckian? And why is it so damned important that I understand the distinction?

          My guess is that the answer lies in a combination of political history and the details of Lamarck's conclusions. I'm hoping you can provide some answers, Thexalon, since you have invoked the name and clearly hold the same opinion as to its validity.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:37PM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:37PM (#635255)

            "Lamarckism" was a mostly honest attempt to provide a mechanism for variation and heredity before it was accepted that those things were anything outside the realm of God. Lamarck ended up of course being mostly wrong, although some of his idea lives on as epigenetics. The reason that so many in the field are so adamant about separating themselves from Lamarck is that his ideas were almost invariably misrepresented to further personal agendas, for instance the example of Lysenkoism given by the AC below your post.
            If you're curious about the subject and want to fill a few holes in your knowledge, the book Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution by Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johansen gives a nice history in layman's terms of how the idea of evolution evolved (although they occasionally bog down in "dialogues" attempting to hammer down a point - a minor personal gripe - for one who needs it that probably helps a great deal). The book is almost worth it for the last chapter alone.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @05:50PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @05:50PM (#635608) Journal

            No, what was confusing was the extent to which the authors wanted to make damned sure nobody thought that epigenetics even smelled like Lamarckism.

            As Joe Desertrat indicated, what they really were doing was making sure their theory didn't smell like Lysenkoism.

            But if we can inherit behavioral, social, and apparently even gene methylation patterns, how is that fundamentally not Lamarckian?

            First thing to note here is that gene methylation is actually the most credible example of potential epigenetics inheritance. Those others are based on some very weak science.

            Further, just because a change has occurred in a child organism due to epigenetics doesn't mean that it is an inherited trait. Those can be merely environmental as well with future generations unaffected by the change.

            Finally, Lamarckism is a theory about overall genetic inheritance, not merely the inheritance of a small number of traits. We know it's not true in general.

            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 12 2018, @07:23PM (3 children)

              by meustrus (4961) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {surtsuem}> on Monday February 12 2018, @07:23PM (#636790)

              First thing to note here is that gene methylation is actually the most credible example of potential epigenetics inheritance. Those others are based on some very weak science.

              I thought that the inheritance of behavioral and social traits was self-evident, and hadn't thought much about what science may have been done on the topic. I might be thinking more of language and education, which aren't normally considered "inherited" characteristics but which I believe behave in a profoundly evolutionary manner. Not that I was suggesting that any of this is biologically encoded rather than learned throughout an organism's lifetime.

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:21AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:21AM (#636942) Journal
                Now that you described how these evolve, what does this have to do with Lamarckism? The classic example was speculation about giraffes, that giraffes got those long necks because some animal had to stretch its neck to eat leaves. Then that need to stretch the neck (rather than Darwism's counterview that giraffes with longer necks were the survivors) became an inherited characteristic with children having longer necks as a result and eventually ending up at present where apparently there is no further need to stretch the neck longer.

                The cultural analogue might be immigrants from some part of the equatorial regions who don't celebrate any sort of winter holiday move to the Arctic Circle and start celebrating Christmas. Does that mean that there are genetic changes in any subsequent children as a result to celebrate Christmas better?
                • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:52PM (1 child)

                  by meustrus (4961) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {surtsuem}> on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:52PM (#637118)

                  Of course it doesn't mean genetic change. But given Lamarck's time in history I really doubt any of it had to do with genetics.

                  The profound difference is, as you say, that adaptation during an organism's life is passed down to offspring rather than randomized variations resulting in different biology that win out over generations of natural selection. The question is: does the evolution of knowledge more often follow the former pattern or the latter? How often do we humans get it right and pass the truth on to our children, and how often do we just generate a huge number of hypotheses for only a few correct ones to survive?

                  --
                  If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:20PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @03:20PM (#637136) Journal

                    Of course it doesn't mean genetic change. But given Lamarck's time in history I really doubt any of it had to do with genetics.

                    To the contrary, it does. Lamarck and Darwin didn't know how traits were stored in the organism, but they were quite able to speculate on how those traits were passed on.

                    The question is: does the evolution of knowledge more often follow the former pattern or the latter?

                    It follows neither pattern. The key difference is that knowledge can become greatly modified over the course of a single human's lifespan (even in the days before civilization and the potential for massive technological progress) and can be passed on by a variety of means other than inheritance. Meanwhile inherited biological traits remain very similar as they are passed on. The genetics of a grandchild is not very different from that of the grandmother, but the knowledge and beliefs can be very different and come from sources other than the grandchild's ancestors.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:14PM (#635204)
          Lamarckism? Try Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org]. This pseudoscience, which unfortunately fit Soviet ideology closely, actually resulted in the deaths of millions in the Soviet Union due to famine because it was the basis for their misguided agricultural policy.
        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 09 2018, @10:05AM

          by Wootery (2341) on Friday February 09 2018, @10:05AM (#635459)

          I'm guessing you didn't read the rest of my comment.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:45PM (#635153)

        Yes yes, there is no such thing as objective reality,

        Sure there is; there is no gender pay gap and only two genders. Yet we frequently see fake news from the mainstream left claiming otherwise.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:57AM (#634829)

      Being someone who votes for or against both parties I disagree.

      Many of the things I see tucker or hannity push these days requires me to not know certain things in procedure that they conveniently leave out of their commentary.

      This is not something I see with maddow. Though when she hits her stride she does at times try to force a round peg in a square hole.

      And I used to love tucker over bugala since bugala was so pretentious. So I should like him but instead I see him as disingenuous now

      Case in point the uranium reports. Hannity and tucker showed why they are opinion “experts” and Shepard Smith had to explain it with the details Hannity and tucker would always leave out. Important details.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:13PM (9 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:13PM (#634834)

      Surely it depends on what you define as fake news?

      Fake news: alt-facts pushed to your tribe attention for them to drum as noisily as possible and drawn other news.
      Alt-facts: facts that are factually incorrect - aka lies.

      (And no, Goebbels seems to have been more intelligent than to say truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. [stackexchange.com], but Hitler was a fan of the big lie [wikipedia.org])

      In other words: you are trolled, stop whinging and deal with it.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:16PM

        by c0lo (156) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:16PM (#634836)

        s/drawn/drown/

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:07PM (7 children)

        by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:07PM (#634870) Journal

        While Goebbels may not have said such a thing outright, it does seem that such sentiments were indeed expressed by the Nazis:

        Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science’. There is only ‘German Science’, ‘Jewish Science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ — well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five — well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs — and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement. — George Orwell, Looking Back on the Spanish War [orwell.ru]

        --
        Regulam auream recordare: qui aurum habet, regulas facit.
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:10PM (6 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:10PM (#634974) Homepage
          QI S15 E13 "Omnishambles" a week or so back had an interesting example of some real English fake news from nearly 100 years back. (**igger warning: feminists might be **iggered by what they year. (I Bowdlerise **igger, as I know some are **iggered by the word **igger)) As a fan of the program, I encourage you to just find and watch the whole episode (the "XL" version contains some less-controlled moments that are left out of the shorter version of the program), such that you too might become hooked.
          --
          Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:27PM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:27PM (#635174) Journal

            It seems to me it's mostly the right that gets, well, triggered easily. I mean, hell, look at them trying to undermine our entire secular nation-state's basis in order not to have their feelings hurt by seeing people who think/believe/love/whatever differently than they do actually living their lives. They project a helluva lot too. I don't know anything even close to the John Birch society on the left.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:38PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:38PM (#635282)

              I don't know anything even close to the John Birch society on the left.

              If you were to conveniently overlook every single left wing advocacy and protest group then you would have a point.

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:39AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:39AM (#635315)

              Hmm, while I agree that conservatives are more easily upset in general there are quite a few liberal groups pushing agendas. Care to elaborate a little more? How is PETA not a liberal version of John Birch?

            • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 09 2018, @06:03AM

              by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:03AM (#635405)

              Well the Center-Right (aka Democrats) are doing their darndest to start a new cold war with the potential for global thermonuclear destruction with Russsia, so let's not give the Right all the credit.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:59AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:59AM (#635352)

            > (I Bowdlerise **igger, as I know some are **iggered by the word **igger)

            It might have been on purpose, but you should still probably "bowdlerize" some letters in the middle instead :)

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @08:55AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @08:55AM (#635451) Journal
              I bet he hodls bitcoins.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:27PM

      by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:27PM (#634844) Journal
      In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then? — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
      --
      Regulam auream recordare: qui aurum habet, regulas facit.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:58PM

      by isostatic (365) on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:58PM (#634939) Journal

      This is quite evidently fake news:

      The launch of the falcon heavy has caused a flood in China *insert picture of 2011 floods in Brazil*, causing the leader or Wuhan province to be executed at dawn.

      There's no bias here, there's just multiple things that simply are not objectively true

      Snopes has been full of "fake news" for years, stuff that is objectively false -- like "the Eagles telling Trump 'fuck you'"

      This is different to "News I don't agree with", or "Opinion that's a real stretch".

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:17PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:17PM (#635034) Journal

      Surely it depends on what you define as fake news?

      Things that are objectively false, yet reported as news.

      See, it's not that hard!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:20PM (#635240)

        It's the "objectively false" part that gets them. Actually, many people out there don't believe that such a thing exists. An unnamed White House aide during the Bush Administration was famously quoted [nytimes.com]:

        The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:10AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:10AM (#635299)

        Things that are objectively false, yet reported as news.

        See, it's not that hard!

        Correct. Trump has a 4% higher approval rating than Obama did at this time in his presidency. What would that number be without the massive fake news smear campaign courtesy of the FBI, the DOJ, Soros, Clinton, Brock, McCain and Fusion GPS?

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 12 2018, @10:34PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday February 12 2018, @10:34PM (#636855)

          Correct. Trump has a 4% higher approval rating than Obama did at this time in his presidency. What would that number be without the massive fake news smear campaign

          Obama's approval rating was the result of an even more aggressive and highly financed "massive fake news smear campaign". The sort of campaign that had people claiming they loved the ACA but hated "Obamacare", Obama was not born in the US, Obama is a Muslim, etc., etc.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:23PM (6 children)

      by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:23PM (#635173)

      Bullshit. Fake News is incredibly easy to define. It is news that was fabricated as to have the imprimatur of MSM (hold the laughter please), for a specific purpose, and delivered to a specific audience. When Russia was paying Facebook via its troll network, they were posting lies and propaganda, but doing so as to appear from legitimate trusted sources of news. Hence, it was news that was faked.

      This is not something you can pull that both sides crap on. The majority of fake news was heavily slanted towards making Orange Anus look electable, and Hillary to look worse than she already does. Although I will admit, that is not from first hand experiences. I watch no advertisements of any kind, and I have ZERO presence within social media (no this site isn't social media). So what would I know about fake news other than the cerebral discussions about it. Fake News does not make its way here though, and I largely attribute that to our great group of editors.

      Most people aren't getting their news anymore from the major so-called trusted outlets of news, but are getting it from each other on social media. Whoever sounds the best and loudest, gets promulgated further throughout those networks pushing the lies.

      Now, when somebody says Fake News, 99% of the time they're full of fucking shit. It's become a retort when you don't like the truth coming to the surface. Don't attack the truth with reason, logic, or well founded positions based on sound principles, but simply loudly claim it was faked news. That's Orange Anus's favorite move. Deny, Deny, Deny, Deny, and when the truth is plain for all to see, simply deny reality in its entirety and scream "fake news".

      It's funny how people didn't like Orange Anus being compared to Hitler, but Hitler attacked the press in much the same ways.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:29PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:29PM (#635176) Journal

        Preach it, brother. The Trump types project like a mile of movie theaters, thinking if they accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of, it somehow absolves them. It's cowardly, hypocritical, and amoral, not even immoral. But they, of course *being* immoral, don't give a shit.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:54PM

        by Unixnut (5779) on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:54PM (#635190)

        Truth to be honest, I don't actually care. I'm not American, and I don't support either side of the same turd coin that the majority of you seem to cheer for.

        However, due to the size and capacity of the USA, and their global reach (and because every single Tech site in English seems to have a selection of Americans willing to rant about it), I can't help but get constant "Fake news" information from basically both sides of the coin. And it is always the same crap:

        News item: "Trump gets pissed on by prostitutes/Colluded with Russians/Stole election"
        R's: "Fake News"
        D's: "Gospel Truth"

        News item: "Hillary colluded with Russians for uranium/tried to steal election/$some_reason, etc..."
        R's: "Gospel Truth"
        D's: "Fake News"

        And so on and so on. Every single piece of news is either "Gospel Truth" or "Fake news". There is no way to actually have a reasoned debate about it.

        "Fake News" has just become a moniker, yet another way to divide Americans bitterly. Just look at the responses on the site. I imagine some posters were literally foaming at the mouth as they typed their retorts.

        And like you nicely put, it has been devalued to the point of meaningless. Anyone can define "fake news" just like they can define "hate speech". It is a very dangerous precedent, that people seem to be missing in their strong urge to beat upon "the other side".

        Sure, you can claim it once had a clearly defined meaning (just like "hate speech" did), but as always in politics, its get redefined, and twisted and turned to suit the purposes of whoever is using it.

        If "fake news" was just limited to the USA, I might not even care that much, however now my local politicians have taken to defining news which they disapprove of as "fake news", which really complicates the ability to have a reasoned debate. Plus you can't accuse them of stifling the opposition/alternative viewpoints because they just point to that "Bastion of Free speech"/"Leader of the free world", the USA, so if the US can do it, so can they.

        How do you debate with someone whose starting argument is that everything you say is fake, and therefore not worth responding to? For many, the result is to just declare that the other sides news is also "fake", and then you get a societal split with two echo chambers self reinforcing their reality.

        Not to mention this has got two sides of America locked in an increasingly bitter (and violent) conflict, while your country is degrading, the economy is going to shit, and we are teetering on the edge of possibly another big war in the middle east that could escalate quickly into a global confrontation.

        Talk about a case of a population wide "missing the forest for the trees".

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:21PM (1 child)

        by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:21PM (#635211)

        Bullshit. Fake News is incredibly easy to define.

        Yes...despite Trump and the right trying to portray a slight slant to the left as equivalent to fucking #Pizzagate. Give me a fucking break with that.

      • (Score: 3, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Friday February 09 2018, @06:12AM (1 child)

        by hemocyanin (186) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @06:12AM (#635408)

        Hillary voted for the Iraq war with enthusiasm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]

        Her only beef with GWB, at 13:29: "Here at home, this administration is bankrupting our economy forcing us to make the worst kids of false choices between national and homeland security, which they don't fund."

        In other words -- raise taxes to fund more wars and domestic surveillance.

        That's all fact -- her own damn words.

        You don't get to make a "mistake" like HRC did on Iraq, and say "oopsie". She was, is, and will always be, an evil murderous cretin who deserved to lose. And losing to Trump? That's just fucking icing on the cake - seriously, how incompetent do you have to be? Talk about a slap across the face, she can now go shrivel up in shame and leave the world a better place.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday February 09 2018, @07:55PM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @07:55PM (#635673)

          Is this a segue-way to a different conversation? :)

          I was on the Hillary hating bandwagon before 2000. It was shortly after she made such a fuss about health care, and then basically did a 180, started taking money from the opposition to entertain them at dinner. To make it clear, for me, that's like Luke Skywalker giving multiple hour long speeches to young Rebels, then turning about and asking the Emperor if wants another mimosa before going down on him. Maybe I was unfair at the time, but her subsequent actions showed that she really did start blowing the 1%. She's a darling of the "Left", but is nothing more than an Establishment Democrat with Corporate handlers.

          So yeah, I said Hillary was being made to look worse than she already did. They needed to go so far as to make her a vampiric kiddie fucker with basement operations under various pizza establishments, one in particular. That's some pretty spectacular Fake News, exceeded only its ridiculousness, by the gullibility of those that found it true.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:05PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:05PM (#635230)

      The authors of the paper have their own definition of fake news (they prefer the term "junk news"), starting on page 2 of their paper [ox.ac.uk], which is really very clear:

      We identified sources of junk news and information, based on a grounded typology. Sources of junk news deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news.

      It does not seem to coincide with the definition which you have decided to use. Not even close. There is nothing about party distinctions in the definition, and it could just as easily apply to the left wing as well as the right wing. However, this thing in their definition about "misleading, deceptive or incorrect information" depends upon a stubborn thing called "objective reality", and if you're not one of those people who believes such a thing exists, then well, it's not going to make any sense at all.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:32PM (#635246)

        deliberately publish

        Pffft! [google.com]

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:17PM (56 children)

    by looorg (578) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:17PM (#634839)

    "Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology."

    So the "junk news" was selected on the opinion of 12 people they found, but they didn't think it was necessary to include whom these 12 people where and what the actual list was? That doesn't really make me all warm and fuzzy over their selection process. They can call it whatever they like but in the end it is still a matter of opinions, unless proven otherwise, even if you think you judge it based on "professianlism, style, credibility, bias and counterfeit". You can hide behind coding, fancy graphs and the Oxford name all you like but they are hiding some essential data and their process seem to leave a lot to be desired.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:29PM (15 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:29PM (#634846)

      they are hiding some essential data and their process seem to leave a lot to be desired.

      A match for your strawman: the list of junk news sources and examples of fake news stories starts at page 6 of the FA's Online Supplement [ox.ac.uk].

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:49PM (9 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:49PM (#634855) Journal
        Where is the "match" in that? Sure, they provide a list, but what makes you think it's related to their stated criteria?

        I'll note that they're missing some sources of fake news with that criteria. For a notorious example [newscientist.com] from last decade:

        In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

        Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was “speculative”.

        Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

        [...]

        However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he “outright rejected” the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. “The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them,” he says.

        “We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report,” Lal says. “The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain’s assertion and not with the IPCC authors.”

        This got into the IPCC chapter via a white paper [soylentnews.org] from the World Wildlife Fund (which let us note, checked off the boxes for fake news).

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:05PM (8 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:05PM (#634868) Homepage Journal

          Where is the "match" in that? Sure, they provide a list, but what makes you think it's related to their stated criteria?

          You have been provided with the data and the methodology. Please let us know how and where in their analysis they've skewed the results.

          We're all very excited that you're attempting to replicate the results of this study. You go, girlfriend!

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:20PM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:20PM (#634880) Journal

            You have been provided with the data and the methodology. Please let us know how and where in their analysis they've skewed the results.

            The data indicates that they may well have skewed the results as does the conclusions.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:32PM

              by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:32PM (#634894) Homepage Journal

              The data indicates that they may well have skewed the results as does the conclusions

              That's just hand waving. Which data? what results are skewed?

              You made a claim. back it up. Or you're clearly talking out of your ass.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:30PM (4 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:30PM (#635177) Journal

              "Results you don't like" != skewed methods and/or conclusions.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:36PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:36PM (#635252)

                "Results you don't like" == Russian collusion

                apparently [thehill.com]

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:20PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:20PM (#635279)

                  Do you happen to be a farmer? I'm just curious where you're getting so much straw!

                  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:42PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:42PM (#635286)

                    Radical leftists use it to pad out the skull where the parts of the brain responsible for self awareness are in the rest of us.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:50AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:50AM (#635320)

                      Ah, so just a moron who doesn't understand what a strawman argument is or why the comparison used is flawed. Hmmm.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @12:10AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @12:10AM (#635300) Journal

            You have been provided with the data and the methodology.

            Let us note that we have not been provided with the raw data, but rather heavily processed, high level data. So no, we haven't been provided with "the data". And as I noted, the methodology is fundamentally flawed due to the subjectivity of the "coders" who decide what is "junk news". I since have looked for indications that they addressed the problems in their methodology. I didn't find anything in either the research paper or the online supplement. It's not an onerous burden to devote some portion of the write up to such an important issue.

            Finally, there is a second serious flaw in the methodology in that they do not consider the impact of automation of fake news propagation. Would the "Right" still be the most promiscuous without the apparent flood of Russian fake news spread by shill accounts? The time frame in question would contain at least part of the peak period of fake news creation.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by looorg on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:51PM (4 children)

        by looorg (578) on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:51PM (#634856)

        Fine. I read the main PDF and not the site and there wasn't really any mention of the supplemental information. Even after having read the supplemental pages it kind of just enforces my point -- more or less all the news they classify as "junk news" are heavily slanted. Have you read their examples? They apparently can't find any or very little junk news from either side, perhaps it's the case that there is no junk news from one side but I seriously doubt that. So it once again comes down to this being a selection of news to fit some somewhat vague criteria of theirs.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:03PM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:03PM (#634866)

          I read the main PDF and not the site and there wasn't really any mention of the supplemental information.

          If by "I read" you mean "I skimmed", then I believe you.
          Otherwise, the

          references the Online Supplement many times over.

          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by VLM on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:45PM (#634961)

            OK... let me try to help looorg make his (or at least, my...) point.

            I skimmed the paper and there's no examples of categorized data which would help analyze the trustworthiness of the supposed analysis.

            One example is the numerous, some possibly fake photoshopped, legacy media (newspaper, magazine) covers claiming Hillary has 99% odds to win, to demoralize the Trump supporters into not voting and meme the result into existence. LOL that didn't work so well did it?

            For another example the leftist chanting has never stopped nor slowed down in the last year that Trump is Literally Hitler and Trump Cooperated With The Russians Because Hitler and The Russians Historically Had a Such a Romantic Bromance. Now is that false news or propaganda or laughably call it the truth with a straight face or not counted?

            Or a VERY concrete example, a day or two below the election I reposted a semi-famous meme "Trump Voters Go To the Polls / Hillary Voters Go To the Polls" and the Trump side was the usual mismash of extremely alpha male road warrior car chase with warhammer 40K god emperor stuff, and the Hillary side was a nude submissive obviously very low-T male wearing a dog leash and a dildo and not much else, being walked on four legs down the street by a fat female dominatrix with a whip presumably a typical street scene in SF or LA or at DNC/Antifa/LegacyMedia (as if there's any difference or separation) board room meetings but a bit unusual in the civilized world. Now my question is, was that meme:

            1) Fake News falsely showing non voters or at least falsely implying either the submissive male or the W40K/Road Warrior cosplayers were entering or exiting a voting facility

            2) Totally F-ing hilarious laugh out loud slightly slanted propaganda meme from my pals on /pol/

            Its kind of important when analyzing the quality of academic political bias, which as we know has a history of incredible left wing extremism, so it would be very unwise to trust out of hand.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:38AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:38AM (#635415)

              God DAMN you're a loon. You'd recently seemed to tone it down, but I guess all you needed was a paper showing your inherent insanity to really set you off.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:44PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:44PM (#635000) Journal

          They apparently can't find any or very little junk news from either side, perhaps it's the case that there is no junk news from one side but I seriously doubt that.

          What do you mean by the word "side" ?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:48PM (39 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:48PM (#634853) Homepage Journal

      It's pretty easy to just dismiss this without knowing anything about the study. I think it useful to at least look at the sampling and methodology before accepting or rejecting it. Of course, that's too much work if your biases cause you to simply accept or reject the research without understanding what was actually done (the TFS certainly doesn't give much information about that).

      According to the actual paper:

      STUDY SAMPLE AND METHOD
      For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites
      across the political spectrum was used, drawing from
      a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the
      US election, between November 1-11, 2016. (The full
      seed list is in the online supplement and available as
      a standalone spreadsheet.) We identified sources of
      junk news and information, based on a grounded
      typology. Sources of junk news deliberately publish
      misleading, deceptive or incorrect information
      purporting to be real news about politics, economics
      or culture. This content includes various forms of
      extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked
      commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news.
      For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in
      at least three of the following five domains:

      • 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 present opinion 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.
        Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated
      in a rigorously iterative coding process. A
      team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US
      political and media landscape, labeled sources of
      news and information based on a grounded typology.
      The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder
      reliability among three executive coders, who
      developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91
      sources of political news and information, which we
      identified over the course of several years of research
      and monitoring, produce content that includes various
      forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme,
      hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political
      information. We tracked how the URLs to these
      websites were being shared over Twitter and
      Facebook (see online supplement for details)

      The online supplement mentioned can be had here [ox.ac.uk]

      Note that the online supplement includes all the sources, the criteria by which those sources were classified, and the statistical methods used for the analysis, allowing you to replicate (or attempt to) this work if you choose.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:56PM (20 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @12:56PM (#634861) Journal

        It's pretty easy to just dismiss this without knowing anything about the study.

        Indeed. Let us recall that just because researchers claim they use a certain methodology, it doesn't mean [wattsupwiththat.com] that they actually do. Research that comes up with a notable political bias probably isn't firing on all cylinders.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (18 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:00PM (#634863) Homepage Journal

          Indeed. Let us recall that just because researchers claim they use a certain methodology, it doesn't mean [wattsupwiththat.com] that they actually do. Research that comes up with a notable political bias probably isn't firing on all cylinders.

          Absolutely! You couldn't be more correct.

          So tell us, now that you have access to the data and the methodology, when will you have a report for us as to whether or not you can replicate the results?

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:24PM (17 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:24PM (#634886) Journal

            So tell us, now that you have access to the data and the methodology, when will you have a report for us as to whether or not you can replicate the results?

            Certainly. There's just the matter of funding. The above group in question received funding of around 2 million Pounds over five years. I think that's a reasonable amount in order to fund replication of the data. I await your check.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (16 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:30PM (#634892) Homepage Journal

              if you wish your unfounded assertions to have any value other than bloviation, you need to provide some evidence.

              What's that? You won't provide any evidence for your assertions? Then we must assume they're bullshit.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:37PM (14 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:37PM (#634903) Journal
                And that's the funding level at which I'll provide said evidence. Let us keep in mind the original researchers did not have to do this work on their own dime. I see no reason I should either.
                • (Score: 5, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:45PM (13 children)

                  by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:45PM (#634909) Homepage Journal

                  You also didn't need to claim they were right or wrong. You, apparently, without spending millions, knew what was correct and what wasn't.

                  Now you say you need millions to back up your claim? Why should I pay for *you* to determine if *your* assertions are correct?

                  Without evidence, what you claim is just rank speculation. If you want those claims treated as anything else, *you* need to back up *your* claims.

                  Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:52PM (12 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:52PM (#634936) Journal

                    Why should I pay for *you* to determine if *your* assertions are correct?

                    Because you're the one whining about it. I think it's reasonable that you pay as a result.

                    Without evidence, what you claim is just rank speculation. If you want those claims treated as anything else, *you* need to back up *your* claims.

                    And I'm not willing to provide said evidence on my own dime.

                    Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

                    Funny how that applies to everything, even the research we're discussing and your opinions.

                    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:04PM (11 children)

                      by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:04PM (#634971) Homepage Journal

                      Or is the world required to just take your word for it? Not so much.

                      Funny how that applies to everything, even the research we're discussing and your opinions.

                      Nope. The researchers helpfully provided all their data and their methodology. Which allows other researchers to either replicate or refute their results. That's called *science*

                      As for my opinions, I didn't offer any WRT this study. In fact, I didn't express *any* opinion about the study itself. I expressed the opinion that you were making unsubstantiated claims. That doesn't imply that I believe the researchers were correct.

                      But the researchers did provide me with the tools and information I'd need to get enough information to form an opinion about the research.

                      Which is a heck of lot more than you did. Which is zero. Rather, you just spouted off without any evidence at all.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:28PM (10 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:28PM (#635093) Journal

                        The researchers helpfully provided all their data and their methodology.

                        But not the funding as I have helpfully noted earlier. And you're making a rather generous assumption that what they claim is their data and methodology actually is. That is one of the points of replication.

                        But the researchers did provide me with the tools and information I'd need to get enough information to form an opinion about the research.

                        But as I have noted, not the funding.

                        Which is a heck of lot more than you did. Which is zero.

                        Let us remember that that research led to conclusions which happen to be politically convenient? I will not "provide" when no one is paying me to undertake that considerable effort. Instead, let us recall that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And bad research in this area has been funded before.

                        • (Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM (9 children)

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM (#635126) Journal

                          Obvious rebuttal: khallow, you're doing it again! You have had your ass handed to you. You have lost this debate. Answer the nice Soylentil's question, and show the data and the skew, or please stop.

                          --
                          #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:31PM

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:31PM (#635179) Journal

                            Spoiler alert: he ain't gonna. The guy's so far out of his depth it's anyone's guess as to whether drowning, barotrauma, or one of those giant fish that's 2/3 jaws will get him first.

                            --
                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:48PM (7 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:48PM (#635263) Journal
                            Here's my rebuttal [soylentnews.org] to this whole mess. TL;DR is that the researchers used methods with serious problems, have conflicts of interest, and present their research in a very partisan way yet I need to show "evidence" that the research is flawed for free.
                            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:04PM (5 children)

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:04PM (#635267) Journal

                              Shut up, khallow. Listen to much wiser men who have gone before you.

                              "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

                              Laplace [rationalwiki.org]

                              You have only asserted these things, due to a delusional mind. None of them are true. You just believe them. The rest of Soyentildom has grown tired of your constant ideological foaming at the mouth. Pay up, or shut up.

                              --
                              #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:40PM (4 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @11:40PM (#635283) Journal

                                You have only asserted these things, due to a delusional mind.

                                Rather than be an idiot, read my post that I linked. There's a reason I didn't make a substantial reply in my previous post.

                                None of them are true.

                                "None"? I bet my assertions about the funding for the group behind this research has a greater likelihood of being true than that assertion does.

                                You just believe them. The rest of Soyentildom has grown tired of your constant ideological foaming at the mouth. Pay up, or shut up.

                                I like this more assertive aristarchus. Now, just think on top of that. You should be doing pretty well, if you can manage that.

                                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday February 09 2018, @12:01AM (3 children)

                                  by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 09 2018, @12:01AM (#635296) Journal

                                  I bet my assertions about the funding for the group behind this research has a greater likelihood of being true than that assertion does.

                                  Bet it doesn't! Yeah, where does that leave us? You are not helping your case, khallow. We are all pulling for you, and trying to get you to realize that you are just embarrassing yourself. You have nothing but conservative conspiracy wishful thinking behind your accusations, made obvious by your refusal to provide even the slightest evidence for them. So my dear and fluffy khallow, please desist before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

                                  --
                                  #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                                  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday February 09 2018, @12:25AM (2 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @12:25AM (#635308) Journal

                                    Bet it doesn't!

                                    Source is here [europa.eu]. Did make a whoops. It was Euros not British pounds. That'll save some money (Pound is about 14% more than the Euro).

                                    You have nothing but conservative conspiracy wishful thinking behind your accusations, made obvious by your refusal to provide even the slightest evidence for them.

                                    Fortunately, one can read my posts and see for themselves. I suggest instead of continuing this vapid assault, you just read my most substantial criticism [soylentnews.org] of the research. I recognize most of my writing was not very informative or well thought out with some error, but that post is my best argument to date.

                                    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:57AM (1 child)

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:57AM (#635322)

                                      OMG get these commie bastards out of here, how dare SN publish an article funded by CORDIS!!!

                                      CORDIS is the Community Research and Development Information Service.

                                      It is the European Commission's primary public repository and portal to disseminate information on all EU-funded research projects and their results in the broadest sense.

                                      The website and repository include all public information held by the Commission (project factsheets, publishable reports and deliverables), editorial content to support communication and exploitation (news, events, success stories, magazines, multilingual "results in brief" for the broader public) and comprehensive links to external sources such as open access publications and websites.

                                      Such a bastion of liberal horror! /s

                                      While I do think the study needs to be taken with a big grain of salt your accusations are pretty baseless and obviously a result of being triggered by this topic. QED? lol

                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:08AM

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:08AM (#636937) Journal
                                        The obvious rebuttal is that the EU's very existence is at stake and they are funding research which suspiciously smells like propaganda to defend themselves.

                                        Brexit took away an important member of the EU. Far right groups are throughout the EU (with the potential to cause either breakups of existing states or additional Brexit votes. Meanwhile on the US side, the Trump election gave many of those European far right groups credibility. Now, we see the EU funding research which portrays the alt-right (the US flavor of the far right) as a bunch of gullible dupes. What a coincidence!

                                        Needless to say, I don't buy that this is a coincidence, but rather part of some overall strategy for discrediting political threats to the EU.
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:25PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:25PM (#635631)

                              Here's my rebuttal [urbandictionary.com] to all of you! Jolly good show!

                              I cannot believe the mods went for it... Sad!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @02:13PM (#634923)

                Oh, no! The mothership seriously cut khallows funding! It asks now more trolling for the same money!
                Expect an increased activity.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @04:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @04:18AM (#635382)

          Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed [qz.com]

          according to a review published in [springer.com] the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology[,] The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers--a common way to test scientific studies--and found biased, faulty results.

          Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

          "Every single one of those analyses had an error--in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis--that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus"

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:32PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:32PM (#634895) Journal

        If you use my extension you want to select each paragraph and hit "Despace" (next time).

        STUDY SAMPLE AND METHOD

        For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites across the political spectrum was used, drawing from a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the US election, between November 1-11, 2016. (The full seed list is in the online supplement and available as a standalone spreadsheet.) We identified sources of junk news and information, based on a grounded typology. Sources of junk news deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news. For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:

        • 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 present opinion 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.

        Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91 sources of political news and information, which we identified over the course of several years of research and monitoring, produce content that includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political information. We tracked how the URLs to these websites were being shared over Twitter and Facebook (see online supplement for details)

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:36PM

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @01:36PM (#634902) Homepage Journal

          Thanks Takyon!

          I ran out of mod points, but I'll try to remember to mod this up in 10 or so hours.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:52PM (8 children)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @03:52PM (#634963)

        They're basically describing the NYT and CNN without calling out by name, aren't they?

        Sure, nicely defined set of pattern matching rules, but don't forget the implied suffix, well, obviously excluding our political friends at X Y and Z.

        There's also chronological issues. Maybe I'm late to the party, but I remember the BBC "in the old days" was the bastion of real journalism to the world, and then in the brexit and scottish independence voting they went full on propaganda lie mode, and I'm like "WTF BBC?". So sure, I'll agree, maybe the NYT in 1955 or 1975 was respectable, but its a laughingstock today.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:11PM

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:11PM (#634975) Homepage Journal

          They're basically describing the NYT and CNN without calling out by name, aren't they?

          Actually, they do name names. Not only do they name names, they provide details as to how they arrived at that list of names.

          Don't believe me. Look at their data:
          http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf [ox.ac.uk]

          But you don't care about data and evidence do you? You're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, isn't that it?

          Science doesn't care what you, I, or anyone else thinks. When done properly, the data speaks for itself.

          But please, don't let that stop you. We all get a nice chuckle when you blather on. As such, by all means carry on.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2, Redundant) by FatPhil on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:27PM (3 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday February 08 2018, @04:27PM (#634988) Homepage
          BBC went, for me, full fake news bullshit on the day we joined the US in its illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. It pushed the government lies so hard down your neck that I was involuntarily shitting them at the same time.

          Others have opined that their coverage of Ireland way back during The Troubles was equally flawed. I cannot comment, as I was too young, naive, and isolated from the reality of the situation back then to be able to detect propaganda. I have no hesitation to repeat their opinions neutrally herein, to save them the effort, they are as believable as the news reports we got on the mainland.
          --
          Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
          • (Score: 2, Redundant) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:21PM (2 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:21PM (#635037) Journal

            Accurately reporting what the administration was saying at the time is not Fake News.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by canopic jug on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM

              by canopic jug (3949) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:07PM (#635127)

              Only if they call out the lies, especially the blatant ones, while doing so. Otherwise they are just a conduit and not a news service.

              --
              Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 09 2018, @08:39AM

              by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Friday February 09 2018, @08:39AM (#635446) Homepage
              If you cannot tell the difference between "A government report says 'something blatantly false'" and "Something blatantly false", congratulations, you're one of the sheeple.
              --
              Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:23PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:23PM (#635041) Homepage

          The NYT and CNN are interesting cases, because they have an absolutely overwhelming bias, but that overwhelming bias isn't left or right, it's pro-establishment - i.e. pro-rich and pro-powerful.

          The strongest example of this in action that I can think of is that when the NYT got a story that George W Bush had authorized NSA eavesdropping on Americans in December 2003. The first thing they did with it was to run it by the Bush administration before even thinking about publishing it. The Bush administration asked them to wait 1 year before publishing, which would conveniently mean that the story was unknown while the presidential election was going on. The NYT happily complied with the request, even though they were very publicly pulling for John Kerry in that upcoming election.

          And you'll notice something else if you watch news on CNN: Wolf Blitzer in particular pretty much never questions any report from anybody in any presidential administration. Even if it's complete nonsense. And it doesn't matter which party you're talking about.

          That's of course different from other organizations' biases. For instance, Fox News is basically the propaganda outlet of the Republican Party, and therefor everything that mainstream Republicans do is good, and everything Democrats do is bad. Meanwhile, MSNBC is basically the propaganda outlet of the Democratic Party, and therefor everything that mainstream Democrats do is good, and everything Republicans do is bad. However, and this is important, anything that anyone does that furthers the goals of neither the mainstream Democrats nor the mainstream Republicans is either not newsworthy or downright evil from the point of view of both of them.

          None of this is anything new, but an argument put forth many times, most famously in Noam Chomsky and Edward S Herman's Manufacturing Consent.

          --
          A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
          • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Friday February 09 2018, @02:48PM

            by Kilo110 (2853) on Friday February 09 2018, @02:48PM (#635513)

            The strongest example of this in action that I can think of is that when the NYT got a story that George W Bush had authorized NSA eavesdropping on Americans in December 2003. The first thing they did with it was to run it by the Bush administration before even thinking about publishing it. The Bush administration asked them to wait 1 year before publishing

            There's actually an interesting 'dance' that happens whenever a news organization finds out about these types of top-secret things. They always approach the agency in question to discuss it. Since we have freedom of the press in this country, the Gov can't flat out tell them not to publish it, so instead they sit the reporter or editor down and explain to them why it's important to delay/redact/drop the article in question. These talks are very serious and the Gov will often lay down their cards on the table to best make their case. The newspaper then decides what to do, and often they end up yielding on one aspect or another.

            I learned of this process from an interview with a reporter of one of the major newspapers. It may have been the NYT actually.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:33PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:33PM (#635180) Journal

          Read the actual material before you shoot your stupid flapping foodsucker off, will you? As you are acting now, you actually have a negative signal to noise ratio, in that any thread you post in automatically becomes dumber and more obfuscated.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by slinches on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:08PM (2 children)

        by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:08PM (#635026)

        Have you looked at the list of "Junk News" sites they listed? They were obviously cherry picked to generate the desired results. Why is a site like Breitbart on there while none of the progressive/liberal propaganda sites like Vox, Mother Jones, MoveOn.org, etc. are?

         
        If this is a study at all, it isn't studying what it appears to. It's from the Computational Propaganda Project at Oxford and this is their stated purpose in the about section of their page:

        The Computational Propaganda Research Project (COMPROP) investigates the interaction of algorithms, automation and politics. This work includes analysis of how tools like social media bots are used to manipulate public opinion by amplifying or repressing political content, disinformation, hate speech, and junk news.

        We use perspectives from organizational sociology, human computer interaction, communication, information science, and political science to interpret and analyze the evidence we are gathering. Our project is based at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

        Note that they don't state that they are seeking solutions to stop the manipulation of public opinion and spread of propaganda, just study it. And what better way to study the effects than by creating the propaganda yourself and watching how it gets distributed? There's only so much you can do watching how other people's content is distributed because you don't know how deceptive tactics could be hidden in the methodology or in manipulation of the data or if the results are accurate, but just unexpected. Put those inaccuracies in yourself and then you know conclusively that it's fake and how transparent the attempt at deception is.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:09PM (#635232) Homepage Journal

          Have you looked at the list of "Junk News" sites they listed? They were obviously cherry picked to generate the desired results. Why is a site like Breitbart on there while none of the progressive/liberal propaganda sites like Vox, Mother Jones, MoveOn.org, etc. are?

          Since you obiously didn't read it the first time, I'm not sure why you'd do so now. I'll take the chance, but I won't hold my breath:

          STUDY SAMPLE AND METHOD

          For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites across the political spectrum was used, drawing from a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the US election, between November 1-11, 2016. (The full seed list is in the online supplement and available as a standalone spreadsheet.) We identified sources of junk news and information, based on a grounded typology. Sources of junk news deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news. For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:

          • 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 present opinion 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.

          Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated in a rigorously iterative coding process. A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a grounded typology. The Krippendorff’s alpha value for inter-coder reliability among three executive coders, who developed the grounded typology, was 0.805. The 91 sources of political news and information, which we identified over the course of several years of research and monitoring, produce content that includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, and conspiratorial political information. We tracked how the URLs to these websites were being shared over Twitter and Facebook (see online supplement for details)

          You impute bias to the sites you mention. Into which other two domains do they fit as well?

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:36PM

            by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 08 2018, @10:36PM (#635253)

            I did read the methodology and reviewed the list of sources. The sites I mentioned certainly fall under the Bias, Professionalism and Style categories and could arguably fail in Credibility as well.

             

      • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:34PM

        by melikamp (1886) on Thursday February 08 2018, @07:34PM (#635146) Journal
        Hehehe thanks for that! This actually looks like OK methodology. And OMG can you believe Donnie's ardent supporters, most of them superstitious bigots, would be more prone to spreading this garbage over the social media?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:36AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:36AM (#635340)

        Suppose they had actually applied those 5 tests to CNN. Remember, only 3 of 5 are required. OK...

        Professionalism at CNN, just today:
        https://i.redd.it/ucwfu27sp0f01.png [i.redd.it]

        Style at CNN:
        The first thing that pops into my mind to satisfy the "emotionally driven language with emotive expressions" requirement is how Trump's speech got categorized as "dark". Really, WTF? Dark???

        Credibility at CNN:
        That time Trump fed fish with the Japanese prime minister, CNN tried to make it look like Trump was rude. CNN showed the Japanese prime minister feeding with a spoon, then showed Trump dumping his box of food. In reality, both fed with spoons, and then the prime minister dumped first.

        Bias at CNN:
        Well yeah... about 95% of the Trump coverage is clearly negative.

        Counterfeit at CNN:
        I think it meets the standard of "junk content is stylistically disguised as news". All of the Trump-Russia stuff was pure junk.

        So clearly CNN qualifies. They were not in the list. If you share CNN, you are sharing fake news.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday February 09 2018, @01:58AM (1 child)

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 09 2018, @01:58AM (#635351) Homepage Journal

          You do realize that the study was focused on Social Media, right? Specifically Twitter and Facebook.

          What's more, the study focused not on the specific outlets, but who was sharing them.

          I have no axe to grind either way. In fact, I began the post to which you replied by saying that I wasn't making *any* judgements about the study itself.

          If you (and so many others) have an issue with the study, take it up with the authors of the study. Which doesn't include me.

          If you go back and read what I *actually* wrote:

          It's pretty easy to just dismiss this without knowing anything about the study. I think it useful to at least look at the sampling and methodology before accepting or rejecting it. Of course, that's too much work if your biases cause you to simply accept or reject the research without understanding what was actually done (the TFS certainly doesn't give much information about that).

          I'm sick of this "discussion" which pretty much adds up to a bunch of people telling *me* that somehow I'm wrong for suggesting they apply a little bit of the old scientific method.

          I'm done. Go play in traffic or something, kid.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:46AM (#635422)

            The sites matter.

            The way they were chosen was clearly biased. I suspect the bias comes from the selection of who gets to be on their little committee. They picked a bunch of people at a liberal university in the UK. They did not pick people who support UKIP or BNP (the brexit fans) in the rural part of the UK, and they certainly did not go any where near Trump country.

            Let me choose the committee, and the selected sites will be different. We'd find that fake news is almost exclusively shared on Social Media (specifically Twitter and Facebook) by liberals.

(1) 2