John Oliver's show is really well researched and thought out. It is a very shallow look at the issues, given the limitations of stuffing an important subject into 20 minutes, but the fact he's a comedian is irrelevant. It's a good informative show.
Fake News
- Thread starter Ron Mexico
- Start date
John Oliver's show is really well researched and thought out. It is a very shallow look at the issues, given the limitations of stuffing an important subject into 20 minutes, but the fact he's a comedian is irrelevant. It's a good informative show.
There is also the people running the fake news sites interviews. There is also data provided on this same subject in NYtimes. Those two sources just show it is far more conservative problem. I used those two to be more balanced on it. But you can take those. Those are 4 different independent sources. Edit I left of NPR reporting the same thing. Spending any time researching and you will find many more sources that point to the same thing.
Do you watch John Olivers new show? There is some comedy but the vast majority of what his show is about is in depth reports about issues. Buzzfeed has been accused of plagarizing some of their articles and they do put out a lot of articles about entertainment but they have decent news pieces. But that is besides the point.
What are your sources that prove it even or the other way? Or is just your opinion that cant be true? I would love to see information or a study that disagrees, go ahead and post it.
[MENTION=639]Joe Bagadonuts[/MENTION] I hope you don't trust anything I've posted on this. I hope you research this out and post some stuff you have found for everyone else to research. Not just examples, anecdotal evidence or opinions but real stuff.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my Nexus 5X using JazzFanz mobile app
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not interested in researching this. You made a claim that I questioned. Your support for your claim is news sources that I also question. That doesn't mean that your claim is incorrect, but I think you've done a poor job of supporting it. If you know of reputable sources who back up what you are saying I'm not sure why you don't simply provide links.
And BTW, I don't watch John Oliver. His whiny voice gives me a headache, but I loved the piece he did on Drumpf. I don't consider that sort of stuff to be a news source, though.
Its fine not to like John Oliver or to trust his information, but he runs a show that is investigative journalism. He provides all the sources and links for all the information he digs ups and reports on. I would not rely on that for daily news either since he does not do that. That does not make his information invalid. Every news organization has people doing investigative research and journalism.
I am not trying to support anything. I didnt make this claim. I have made the opposite. I am trying to create a conversation about whether this shaped the election or not. I am also starting a conversation if this is becoming a problem. I am pointing out some news and some claims made by many people. I have provided a few links. All of those links have a lot of information in them and many links to their sources. If you want to read more about it and dont want to look for those yourself I would be happy to track down many more links for you to click on. But you just said you dont care to research this(which would include reading links.) I am also guessing you didnt read through what was posted.
You said the claim that conservatives are more prone to this stuff is stupid (a claim I have not made btw just pointed out that is what they said in the interview I listened to) and you provided examples of things that may or may not be targeting liberals. Examples do not prove that they are more common for either side, they are simply examples that it has happened. Would you like to provide any proof of that claim being stupid? Or do you just want your opinion to be that is a stupid claim and any links I have provided are stupid with nothing to back up your claims?
Just in case you actually want to read through and see any of this here are a few places that link to the statistics, talk about it or site them:
https://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/...ic-hyperpartisan-political-media-machine.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis?utm_term=.qeoayGXN07#.edlNqKdv6z
https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13594558/mark-zuckerberg-election-fake-news-trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/...-question-its-influence-in-election.html?_r=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/...dividual-judgment-not-institutional-bias.html
https://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/social-media-and-news-2016-acknowledgments/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/debunk-fake-news-election-day.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilve...rump-misinfo?utm_term=.xvoZ49oMlv#.kt15bQqOyY
There are many more but those are the ones I read when looking into this information after hearing the report an the investigative journalism piece on NPR radio. I am sure I could find the radio report to post but I already listened to it and its a pain to track some stuff down.
I have not formed an opinion on most of this yet. I still see many reasons for it happening and why it is happening.
The only opinion I have formed is we as citizens in this country need to be better at educating ourselves on topics. I personally believe the popularity of both Sanders and Trump was due to this. This issue effects people across the spectrum of political beliefs.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You've got me confused. What is the claim you didn't make? What is the claim you actually made?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The fact that you think this article (the first one in your list of links) contributes anything to the discussion tells me there is no point in discussing this further. Either you are not reading your own links, or you are so biased that reasonable discussion is impossible.
I believe that the reason for Hillary's defeat is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate. Donald Trump got extremely lucky to go up against a rival as bad as her. Liberals are going to be wringing their hands over this defeat, and dreaming up all sorts of ridiculous excuses for the next four years, but the fact is that they would have easily won this election had they backed a halfway acceptable candidate. The email scandal alone should have disqualified her from the race.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Let's think this thing through. The theory is that fake news, which conservatives supposedly fall for more than liberals, caused Trump to win the election. Now, which block of voters did Trump already have? Conservatives, right? So if these fake news stories were going to help Trump eat into Hillary's lead which type of voters did they need to convince?
I am not arguing that the fake news had no impact. I'm arguing that the claim that conservatives are two times more prone to falling for this stuff than liberals is stupid. If anyone provides some actual evidence of this claim I'd be interested in seeing it. So far the only evidence Broncster has provided is that liberals are extremely upset about the election result and therefore conservatives must be dumb.
I am not arguing that the fake news had no impact. I'm arguing that the claim that conservatives are two times more prone to falling for this stuff than liberals is stupid. If anyone provides some actual evidence of this claim I'd be interested in seeing it. So far the only evidence Broncster has provided is that liberals are extremely upset about the election result and therefore conservatives must be dumb.
That first link (one of many) is an opinion piece. I did read through it. It has links to 20 other articles some of which are studies. I am guessing you did not look through any of that. This is what I said about that links.
It looks like you are willing to draw a conclusion without looking into it and have passed off any information because of how you feel about some of the sources. I have posted quite a few links that all cite different sources that provide similar data. If you look up any others they also provide similar information. Some sources draw different conclusions about it. Such as a few very conservative sites that claim the reason for the discrepancy is that the fake news was generated by liberal groups to target conservatives.
So you think it had some impact? or none?
I said that this
Which seems to be the thing bothering you. To which I said:
I have provided many sources that have shown data that looks at it in different ways but still show that it was seemingly targeting conservatives or was pro-Trump at a higher level. There is a few theories out there why.
I personally believe false information was a factor and helped the popularity of both Sanders and Trump. The amount I have heard good and bad information about both those people and about Clinton that is false has been very high this year. I do not think had these fake news sites been out there pumping out a lot of stories this election cycle that Clinton would have won instead. There are too many other factors.
I have drawn the conclusion that people in this country rely on social media too much for their news and that fake news was/is too large of a percentage of that news. I have also drawn the conclusion that a larger percentage of that was more positive for Trump than Clinton.
My guess is that the reason for that is that a significant amount of the pro Trump on social media was done by people who did not care about the election and were trying to generate clicks for money and felt those would get more clicks because of the stereotype about conservatives(that I personally do not believe).
It is fine if you dont think fake news targeted conservatives more. Its fine if you dont like some of my links. There is a ton of information in those and I am guessing you have read a couple headlines and disliked them. It appears you have not read through them. I find it odd you would just claim they are stupid and wrong without providing any information that disagrees but. I find it odd you would claim to want to read any information that points to that and not look through those articles but that is somewhat expected. I could take awhile to research more and provide more links. But you would not read through those either. You have drawn your conclusion and have stated you have no interest in this subject so I dont expect you to read. Based on your responses to me I am also guessing you are not reading what I am writing as well so...
Based on the number of Voters Trump needed to convince conservatives to get out and vote for him he needed to motivate conservatives who were jumping ship, which he did not. He got less votes than many who lost before him. Fortunately Democrats were less motivated to get out and vote for their candidate. Although I do not think Trump or Clinton or their team had anything to do with fake news being produced.
There are plenty of reasons one group was targeted more than the other. I have a few ideas. But I do believe adds that were either anti-Clinton or pro-Trump were a larger portion of social media than the opposite. Although I think the same of media in general this election.
Although I guess maybe Trump was a factor with fake news since he re-posted a lot of fake information and also repeated fake information during his speeches and debates.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-quote-bots-twitter-2016-4
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-quote-bots-twitter-2016-4
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Jonah
Well-Known Member
The meme that Trump won the presidency with less votes than Republicans that lost to Obama is based on incomplete vote counts. Since then, as votes continue to be counted, Trump has surpassed both McCain and Romney’s vote totals: McCain, 59.9 million in 2008; Romney, 60.9 in 2012; Trump is now at about 61.2 with several million votes still to count. His total is the second most for a Republican in history, win or lose. Final vote totals are still a few weeks away but Clinton should end up with more than 63.5 million and Trump close to 62 million. In 2004 Bush received 62,040,610 votes, the most ever for a Republican, so Trump will end up very close to that total.
Good to know. I had not seen that yet. What are the numbers for percentage of eligible voters? Is his numbers still as high. Obviously the population continues to grow and we have more eligible voters now than ever right?
So Clinton received more votes in this election than any Republican candidate ever? How does she now compare to other democrat candidates? What was the voter turn out like?
However mobilizing your own side to get out and vote is still a big part of the election cycle. Bigger than convincing the other side to vote for you.
Mr. Mexico, how would you actually quantify this? I think it's pretty rational to state that old people are prone to believing b.s. emails that everyone forwards. Older people tend to want to conserve the life they once knew.
If you could measure that, how would you measure it against modern news that has a strict tendency to over exaggerate pretty much anything they can make headlines with? Younger, liberal minded folks tend to latch on to those, I think.
How do you quantify what is actually fake news and compare that to what is hype?
If you could measure that, how would you measure it against modern news that has a strict tendency to over exaggerate pretty much anything they can make headlines with? Younger, liberal minded folks tend to latch on to those, I think.
How do you quantify what is actually fake news and compare that to what is hype?
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I have not seen percentage figures yet. My guess is the number of eligible voters will be up and the percentage somewhat down.
Clinton will receive the third most votes in history behind Obama’s 69.5 in 2008 and 65.9 in 2012. Her turnout was more than enough, just not electorally focused. A 100,000 vote swing in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and she is the president elect. This was a campaign failure. She made zero general election appearances in Wisconsin and only went to Michigan a few times near the end of the election when the campaign finally realized they were in danger of losing. In addition, her vaunted GOTV (get out the vote) effort was understaffed and underfunded in Wisconsin and Michigan while wasting time and effort in states like Arizona.
Some of it fits in both. Some of them classified it as articles with some false news or all false news. That is a pretty broad spectrum. However most of them are classify the game news as completely made up stories with no factual basis at all. Just made up story headlines and made up stories. Those are the concerning ones. Frankly I am less concerned about which side is reading them more. It is a problem for both sides. I am concerned that our society is believing these and sharing these 100 percent fake make made up stories. Facebook and social media has grown so large and so many people are relying on it for their information about the world. I think this election has shown that Facebook is influencing people in negative way for both sides.
I go back and forth on how much correcting I want to do on Facebook. I do point out the invalidity of the worst fake stories I see my friends share if I'm in the mood. Most of the time I decide to let them wallow in their incorrect beliefs, because no one likes to be proven wrong in public. Even though I try to research stuff before I share it, I'm sure I've passed on complete crap as well.
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Ive had a hard time finding any reliable source on those numbers.
I am also curious on a side note how many people voted for both Trump and Obama. I am also curious how many people who were eligible for both elections didnt vote and the voted for Trump. I have had no success finding that information. The only thing I have seen is where areas voted more one way or the other. Not actual people numbers who overlapped.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I usually post a simple snopes link.
Last edited: