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.
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.
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]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:06PM (7 children)
This research is great and all, but I can't help feeling it's not telling us anything we don't already know. At worst, it's a way to delude ourselves that we're doing something about propaganda when all it is, is another confirmation that the right wing is more susceptible to propaganda.
The danger is that these right wingnut bozos frog march the nation into doing really stupid stuff. It's been happening, with the worst outbreak so far the 2003 Iraq War. But even more I wonder about the kinds of cunning fools who have brains enough to manipulate the susceptible people with propaganda, but not brains enough to understand why they should not do so. Why the neo-cons could have possibly thought the damage to America's reputation caused by lying about the Weapons of Mass Destruction was worth it, or more like simply didn't put any value to that, naively thought they could rush in on white horses and, presto, magically make Iraq into a stable, democratic ally, turning a blind eye to the very blatant corruption within their ranks-- they were very stupid and cynical.
There is worse to come: Global Warming. CO2 pollution. The folly of Big Oil in burying this issue is breathtaking. The leaders of the oil companies are highly educated and intelligent people, yet they thought too small, choosing to play the game of capitalism instead of the game of human survival. What the heck is the matter with them? They aren't starving and desperate, they are the 0.1%, the super rich. They think they can just shit in the nest, and the rest of us and nature will just magically clean up after them. Big Oil is not exceptional. Big Tobacco does the same thing. Big Finance keeps reaching for fraudulent tools. How many of them, I wonder, are still tempted to run a Ponzi scheme, despite the still fresh disaster of Madoff's? I hope there are some sectors that aren't run by greedy fools. Guess they don't make the news.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 08 2018, @05:53PM (4 children)
The one connection between conservatism and susceptibility to propaganda that I can think of: An essential idea of conservative ideology is that people who are in charge got that way because they are somehow smarter, more moral, harder-working, or more capable than those who are not in charge. By contrast, an essential idea of liberal ideology is that people who are in charge got that way because they are luckier, more privileged, and more criminal than those who are not in charge.
Why does that matter?
1. The people who are currently powerful do better if people think they're in charge because they're better at running things. So that makes them on average more likely to fund conservative propaganda than liberal propaganda.
2. If you show a conservative a wealthy privileged person in a nice suit saying something on the TV, the conservative reaction is along the lines of "Hmm, that obviously smart and successful person said something, so it must be true." By contrast, the liberal reaction is something along the lines of "That rich guy said something, it must be malarkey trying to trick us into making him richer or more powerful." That drives what sort of outlets get created and who gets listened to: Conservative propaganda outlets typically use glitz and glamour, liberal propaganda outlets use low-budget productions with dirt and people in everyday outfits.
3. Conservative propaganda outlets also have an easier time maintaining themselves as organizations, because liberal propaganda outlets become less credible as they get better funding and name recognition. Again, because liberals start becoming suspicious of people with "privilege", and somebody like, say, HuffPo, steadily loses attention and credibility as it becomes richer and more powerful, whereas for something like InfoWars the opposite is true.
Vote for Pedro
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @06:25PM (2 children)
Dude that is messed up
i vote for people that seem to demonstrate they are not being dicks, understand local politics as necessary and big issue concerns, and that do not vote the party line because someone else somewhere else said they had to do something or they won't get funding. at least that's how i try to discern who's a dick or not, and i might not always get it right.
just because you see illinois or something being a state with a big city that seems to be led by a current generation of gangsters does not a political party make. i am not even sure what other criminal states you are talking about. new jersy would work except isn't that disappointed guy working for trump the governor there?
that doesnt matter because there are plenty of completely ineffective democrats elsewhere that couldn't get themselves out of a parking ticket and didn't get their position via being a crook. we have nixon to thank for scaring most of them away from that.
your list is written as if it's a conservative perspective of how things work.
i dont vote based on how rich or good looking someone is--i vote based on what they say, like "we believe we can create jobs by increasing pollution so that the janitors can be outsourced to another company to control costs and contribute to the gig economy by allowing a just-in-time cleanup effort by assigning people to clean coal smoke out of the air without resorting to job killing regulations. people can welcome the opportunity to drink bottled water available at a walmart in bulk packages thanks to our new monolopy distribution program of single sourced vendors. *water is bottled at the source, 'Coal Springs', after first being run through for treatment at the power plant; extra minerals included for free!"
If they say that, I won't vote for them -- whether they are republican or democrat
you seem to think its a popularity contest of the richest person with the best propaganda. no, people vote pretty much based on their jobs, their health, and their fears.
can you explain to me how intelligent people vote?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
As with all generalizations they fail to apply to every group. In general most conservatives will not think past the bullshit the guy in a suit spews. More jobs? We'll get more money? Done.
No politician points out the horrible shit their policies will result in, so you must have a clue to weed them out. Good for you if you truly do see through the bullshit and only vote for decent politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:08AM
That is enough.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday February 08 2018, @09:43PM
Exactly. The other night I was watching a new PBS American Experience about the Gilded Age. It was hard not to notice how many people these days buy into the exact same social Darwinist ideologies as did Andrew Carnegie back then...despite the fact that the list of richest Americans is full of people who've done nothing beyond having the right parents! Insane.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08 2018, @08:38PM (1 child)
Mwahahahahaha.
Wake us IF these boogiethings get a chance to damage any territory BEYOND ones already infested by "religion of peace". Till then, do shut up.
No one sane should lift a finger to assist one's sworn mortal enemies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:00AM
Your screed doesn't even make sense. Try again.