Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump supporters far more likely to read and share ‘fake news’ on social media: study

Published

on

President Donald Trump famously complains about “fake news” — but a new study shows his followers are far more likely to read and share phony stories online.

Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College, Andrew Guess of Princeton University and Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter embarked on a study analyzing internet traffic gathered from 2,525 Americans.

Behavior scientists have been researching the spread of fake news and what people actually remember about what they read from fake news sites However, according to the New York Times, this new study is the first example of hard data on those who view fake news and spread it.

Their first major data point was that fake news sites have an extremely limited reach. At least one in four Americans has seen at least one news story that is false, but conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump are the largest consumers. “On 289 such sites, about 80 percent of bogus articles supported Trump,” the Times quoted the study. In fact, the far-right (approximately 10 percent of the sample) made up roughly 65 percent of visits to sites that published more than two stories that were false. Trump supporters were three times more likely to read such sites over supporters of Hillary Clinton.

However, those Trump supporters only read on average five false stories over the course of five weeks. Clinton supporters read just one false story over five weeks.

They’re still measuring the degree to which fake news impacted the 2016 election, however, this study only measured how often stories were read, not whether they were believed or spread. Many of the false stories were outright absurd claims such as claiming Clinton moved $1.8 billion to a Qatar Central Bank or an article headlined “Video Showing Bill Clinton With a 13-Year-Old Plunges Race Into Chaos.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“For all the hype about fake news, it’s important to recognize that it reached only a subset of Americans, and most of the ones it was reaching already were intense partisans,” Nyhan said. However, he said that they were also consumers of actual news. The ratio of false information to factual information yielded higher reads for true information, which makes sense given the amount of available information from accurate news sites over false news sites.

The organic reach of real news sites on social media also lends itself to reaching more people. Given false news sites don’t have access to the audience that sites like the New York Times or Washington Post have, false news would require paid advertising to reach an equal audience. One Russian agency spent only $46,000 in Facebook ads.

Those over 60 years old were much more likely to visit a fake news site than younger Americans, the study found. Moderately left-leading people viewed more false news than pro-Clinton fake news sites. Dr. Rand noted an interpretation of that finding was that those particularly susceptible to false information were less educated voters who switched from supporting President Barack Obama to 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Such voters made up huge subsets of Trump’s supporters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“You can see where this might have had an impact in some of those close swing states, like Wisconsin,” Rand said. However, such a hypothesis would require interviews with those voters to confirm.

ADVERTISEMENT

Facebook was the platform that overwhelmingly linked people to false news sites. Facebook has claimed that they have taken major steps to curb the spread of fake news. One thing they’ve implemented is hiring researchers and journalists to sort through fake news stories being flagged by users. Those staffers then create a report that is sent to Facebook staff. However, the journalists have complained that they have no idea whether those reports actually do anything at all.

In an interview with NPR, a reporter compiling such reports explained they have no way of knowing how many people saw the fake news report compared to the article debunking the fake news.

“Once we submit it to Facebook, they do whatever they do with our material,” Eugene Kiely told NPR.

Facebook never tells fact checkers whether their work reaches users. It could be that one to two people see the fact check over the fake news, or it could be one to 100,000. Facebook says it’s proprietary information, even to the partners doing fact checking.

Kiely said that it’s better than nothing.

Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump was ready to ‘blow up everything’: Biographer Michael Wolff on why Mueller didn’t indict

Published

on

It is not an easy task to discern the truth when confronting a president and his allies who have created their own reality, one in which truth and lies have no absolute meaning and are, for them, ultimately interchangeable.

Donald Trump does this on a personal level: he has lied at least 10,000 times while president.

During his recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Donald Trump continued to lie in public, asserting that he did not try to fire special sounsel Robert Mueller. As multiple sources and witnesses agree, this is not true. Trump also asserted that he can do anything that he wants, according to the Constitution: He apparently believes he is a king or emperor. This too is a lie. The Constitution grants the president no such powers, and was drafted by the framers to stop demagogues and would-be tyrants such as Donald Trump.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

CNN panel destroys Trump’s mass arrest threat of millions as a wildly unrealistic Orlando rally stunt

Published

on

The panel on CNN's New Day cast a jaundiced eye at a threat Donald Trump made on Monday night where he threatened mass arrests of millions of immigrant families as part of an ICE operation.

On Twitter, the president wrote: "Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in. Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people."

According to one panelist on CNN, the president's threat was timed as a political stunt, with the contributor Jackie Kucinich calling it "rally-fodder" before his Orlando campaign kickoff.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump’s ‘no collusion’ lie is finally falling apart — but will Americans actually notice?

Published

on

Although the Mueller Report has been in the public domain for nearly two months, there’s still a ton of confusion and disinformation around it. The confusion is specifically due to two things: Very few voters have actually read it, and Donald Trump is delighted to exploit that fact. It doesn’t help that Robert Mueller has been more than a little cryptic about his findings — refusing to answer questions or to appear for congressional testimony to clear the air.

Consequently, the president and his Red Hat loyalists continue to repeat the “NO COLLUSION!' lie with very little push-back. The all-caps falsehood gains momentum every time Trump repeats it. Likewise, Bill Barr’s March 24 letter and his subsequent public remarks erroneously confirmed Trump’s lie before anyone, including Congress, was allowed to actually read the report.

Continue Reading
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

I need your help.

Investigating Trump's henchmen is a full time job, and I'm trying to bring in new team members to do more exclusive reports. We have more stories coming you'll love. Join me and help restore the power of hard-hitting progressive journalism.

TAKE A LOOK
close-link

Investigating Trump is a full-time job, and I want to add new team members to do more exclusive reports. We have stories coming you'll love. Join me and go ad-free, while restoring the power of hard-hitting progressive journalism.

TAKE A LOOK
close-link