New study claims older conservatives more likely to believe Fake News

As Francis Bacon said: knowledge is power. If this is true, then incorrect information should logically take away our power. I find the potential dubiousness of any news story a personal challenge to get to the bottom of its claims and will often spend several hours researching the claims as best I can. It is perhaps one of the biggest current challenges our culture now faces when so many news stories are opinion dressed up as fact, propaganda or even worse, intentional disinformation. Regardless of what side of the political aisle you reside, we should all be familiar enough with the aspects of the PTB that want to divide and conquer us for their own agendas, so the importance of actually finding trustworthy information becomes critical if we want to keep our union intact.

I do find it somewhat ironic that conservatives, according to the study, have been more easily duped by false narratives, yet through Trump are now the loudest voices screaming about "fake news". Is there not a reasonable voice in the middle that can provide accurate and trustworthy fact checking? Does climate change, or Obama's birth certificate need to take several decades of research to get to the bottom of? How many billions or trillions of dollars does it take to realize that the war on drugs as it has been fought for the last several decades is not a viable strategy? Does trickle down economics benefit the many or just the wealthiest among us? These subjects divide us when we can't come to at least a middle ground agreement on their veracity. Before anyone jumps on me for being a liberal, I will tell you right now that I didn't vote for either Clinton, Obama or any of the other democrats over the last few decades. That being said, I think the republican party has lost its moorings and is in danger of losing site of the truth.

Beware of echo chambers!

Selective exposure to misinformation

PS, I started a similar thread last night which was deleted because I didn't write a couple of paragraphs when introducing the story. It quickly had 2 pages of comments, which I think would show that regardless of my short opening commentary, it "inspired conversation and research" as is the alleged the intent of the "one or 2 paragraph" rule.

a reply to: Harpua
Older people are tricked by new technology and modern propaganda? Well duh

... according to a study done by young liberals.

Lap it up, folks. It's us against them! Clearly, they are the problem (whoever "they" happens to be). Just don't look behind the curtain; it might upset your world view and introduce a level of cognitive dissonance that you just couldn't deal with.

...

id suggest looking into the authors of that work. its great that everyone leaves a trail of crumbs over the internet that give u insight into who they are as a person.

And the younger ones are less likely to believe It, hence President Trump, and not President Clinton.

a reply to: TheScale

It's sad that character assassination is more important than debunking the information presented. A biased source can still present accurate information you know? I'm not saying that the study within the OP is accurate, but it is HIGHLY dishonest to say it isn't accurate without even looking at the info presented.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale

It's sad that character assassination is more important than debunking the information presented. A biased source can still present accurate information you know? I'm not saying that the study within the OP is accurate, but it is HIGHLY dishonest to say it isn't accurate without even looking at the info presented.

except u can go and find facts that will state that people who have a bias arent capable of undertaking a fair and unbiased study. when people want to find something they inevitably will and inject their bias into the work whether they know it or not.

a reply to: Harpua

my own opinion:
i don't believe it is just conservatives who believe opinion pieces as fact.
americans in general are easily swayed by the power of social media.
after several senate hearings on benghazi and the email scandal, people still hold that mrs. clinton is guilty of wrong doing. the push to continue to drag her to defend herself over the same allegations is a waste of tax payer resources.

trump's tax documents is another hot spot pushed by social media. if it is a legal requirement that the president must disclose his tax returns to the public then so be it. if not, then we as a country should move on. tax payer resources can be used better in other areas.

social media has become a powerful medium.

a reply to: Harpua

I do find it somewhat ironic that Liberal Socialists, according to the study, have been more easily duped by false narratives, such as Hillary is going to win by a landslide............

a reply to: TheScale

See. That is just you coming up with excuses to keep from looking at the info presented. Yes bias is bad, but AGAIN just because the source is biased doesn't automatically prove the info is wrong.

Here. Let me put it this way. If the info is biased like you claim, then going through and refuting it should be easy enough. You just have to locate the bias that is on display and highlight how it is tainting the conclusion. But bias is EVERYWHERE. No human is immune from it. Cherry picking sources you've labeled "unbiased" is just your own bias on display.

Anyone paying attention to the right wing lately, would file this under *duh*.

a reply to: Harpua

And older leftists are the MOST likely to believe fake news.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Harpua

And older leftists are the MOST likely to believe fake news.

See Russia stole their election!

Lol... I read a few pages of the link...

It is fake news, itself.
The study, it’s sources, and all of that are flawed...
But beware of echo chambers...
Lol

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheScale

See. That is just you coming up with excuses to keep from looking at the info presented. Yes bias is bad, but AGAIN just because the source is biased doesn't automatically prove the info is wrong.

Here. Let me put it this way. If the info is biased like you claim, then going through and refuting it should be easy enough. You just have to locate the bias that is on display and highlight how it is tainting the conclusion. But bias is EVERYWHERE. No human is immune from it. Cherry picking sources you've labeled "unbiased" is just your own bias on display.

ok for one what is fake news and who determines what makes up a fake news website? find an unbiased group without controversy surrounding who they blacklist and then we can begin to give some credence to their sources. good luck cause this is quite the debate and has been for some time.

a reply to: TheScale

ok for one what is fake news and who determines what makes up a fake news website?

You should read the study. One of the requirements to make an accurate study is to define the words and terminology you are using. This means that the study should define what it means by Fake news.

ETA:

We constructed our measures of fake news consumption using the following procedure:
– Begin with the list of fake news articles identified in Allcott and Gentzkow (2017) found by nonpartisan fact-checking organizations to be false.
– Filter out domains with only a single fact-checked article in the original list, leaving those with two or more identified fake news articles.
– Classify the resulting list of 289 domains as pro-Trump or pro-Clinton “fake news” websitesfor the purposes of this analysis. Code domains as pro-Trump (pro-Clinton) if Allcott and Gentzkow (2017) coded 80% or more of the identified fake news articles from that domain as pro-Trump (pro-Clinton).
– Drop any domains that are not strictly “fake news.” To determine this, we remove those sites previously identified by Bakshy, Messing, and Adamic (2015) as focusing on hard news topics via machine learning classification. 6
– The top 25 resulting “fake news” domains by traffic in the Pulse data are as follows:7
ijr.com, bipartisanreport.com, angrypatriotmovement.com, redstatewatcher.com, endingthefed.com, conservativedailypost.com, usherald.com, chicksontheright.com, dailywire.com, truthfeed.com, tmn.today, libertywritersnews.com, yesimright.com, therealstrategy.com, donaldtrumpnews.co, worldnewspolitics.com, everynewshere.com, ipatriot.com, usapoliticstoday.com, usanewsflash.com, worldpoliticus.com, ihavethetruth.com, prntly.com, fury.news, ilovemyfreedom.org
– Create binary and count indicators for visits to pro-Clinton and pro-Trump fake news websites.

I'd suggest looking around you and not subscribing to a quick soundbite with no actual evidence. Authored by some scared of being fired author ranting some half wit opinion a friend spewed that they had a candy drink at Starbucks with.

There's a LOT more Old folks 'from Missouri' than one might think, at least one third the population. Frankly I think the title should be reversed to point out lib agenda spewing people as ill informed.



if your you are younger than 40, it's likely you won't get Missouri.

a reply to: TheScale

I don't know but it seems to be a big deal these days. Guess I'm in the wrong business. I need to start a fake news company and website. THATs where the money is. It has the most subscribers, apparently.

a reply to: Harpua

I would say, with 100% confidence, it is Democrats who believe in fake nows. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Hillary ... The whole Democratic universe is built on lies.