Connect with us

Fake News Media

New Study Shows ‘Fake News’ Had No Impact on the Result of the 2016 Presidential Election

The study has exposed this canard.

Published

7 months ago

on

A new study released last week has shown that concerns about “fake news” impacting the result of the 2016 presidential election have been vastly overstated.

“Although commentators frequently warn about echo chambers, little is known about the volume or slant of political misinformation that people consume online, the effects of social media and fact checking on exposure, or the effects of political misinformation on behavior,” the study authors noted in the abstract.

Researchers at Dartmouth College, Princeton University, and the University of Exeter used an online survey of over 2,525 Americans as well as data on web traffic collected by YouGov Pulse from desktop computers and laptops in order to come to their conclusions.

Trending: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

“According to the findings, less than half of all Americans visited an untrustworthy website. Moreover, untrustworthy websites accounted for only six percent of all Americans’ news diets on average,” the press release about the study stated.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

They found that fake news usually fell around partisan lines, making it likely that people who accessed the questionable content already knew who they were voting for. It was not probable that the fake news influenced these partisan individuals to change their entrenched voting patterns.

The study, which may be somewhat biased in favor of liberals considering it does come from mainstream academia, does claim that conservatives access more fake news than liberals.

The press release stated: “Visits to dubious news sites differed sharply along ideological and partisan lines. Content from untrustworthy conservative sites accounted for nearly 5 percent of people’s news diets compared to less than 1 percent for untrustworthy liberal sites. Respondents who identified themselves as Trump supporters were also more likely to visit an untrustworthy site (57 percent) than those who indicated that they were Clinton supporters (28 percent).”

Facebook was determined to be the biggest hub for fake news by the study. Individuals who accessed the fake news were more likely to get their information from Facebook than Twitter, Google, Gmail and other tech platforms. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has arguably instituted the most Draconian measures of censorship on his platform since 2016, but globalists like George Soros are saying that is not even enough.

They also found that fact checking, which has been used by Facebook in an attempt to control content on their platform, is incredibly ineffective. They found that almost none of participants ever accessed a fact checking site about a questionable article they had read.

“These findings show why we need to measure exposure to ‘fake news’ rather than just assuming it is ubiquitous online,” said Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth. “Online misinformation is a serious problem, but one that we can only address appropriately if we know the magnitude of the problem.”

The study has been published in the Nature Human Behaviour academic journal.

Fake News Media

SHAMEFUL: Fox News Censors Newt Gingrich for Correctly Stating George Soros’ Role in Fomenting BLM Terror

Et tu, Fox News?

Published

1 week ago

on

Sep 16, 2020

By

A Fox News panel lost their minds earlier today when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich mentioned George Soros’ role in supporting Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA terror displays.

Gingrich told Fox News host Harris Faulkner that it is district attorneys funded by George Soros who are responsible for the violence because they routinely allow violent rioters to be back on the streets. This is when the situation became extremely awkward and tense.

“I’m not sure we need to bring George Soros into this,” left-wing panelist Marie Harf interjected.

“He paid for it,” Gingrich responded.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“George Soros doesn’t need to be part of this conversation,” Harf commented.

“Okay,” Gingrich said confusedly. “So it’s verboten.”

“Alright, we’re good,” Faulkner said to cut Gingrich off. The clip ended with a bizarre period of silence before Faulkner tersely changed the subject.

While it may be expected that a liberal commentator might not want to discuss Soros, the fact that Faulkner – a supposedly non-biased straight news anchor – would carry water for the progressive oligarch is highly disconcerting.

Of course, Gingrich brought up a great point about Soros bankrolling far-left DAs who protect rioting terrorists at war with the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Big League Politics reported on how a Soros front ponied up a large donation to St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner after she vowed to prosecute the McCloskey family for standing up for their rights against a left-wing mob coming to their doorstep:

A front funded by far-left billionaire George Soros has issued a $78,000 donation to the re-election campaign of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who is currently investigating the McCloskey family for defending their property against a marauding mob outside of their home.

The Missouri Justice & Public Safety PAC made the donation. This is a Washington, D.C.-based entity that also papered over Gardner’s campaign in 2016. They have apparently re-branded from “Safety and Justice PAC” to “Missouri Justice & Public Safety PAC” in order to dupe voters that they are a state-wide organization. Soros’ minions admit the oligarch’s collaboration with the fronts.

“Yes, it’s no secret we contribute to Safety and Justice PACs,” Soros spokesman Michael Vachon, said to Just the News. “We are for criminal justice reform.”

Gardner is railroading the McCloskeys after they were forced to confront left-wing terrorists who had barged through a gate and were threatening their home. The McCloskeys have had their home raided, their firearms confiscated, and their lawyer expects Gardner to officially file charges against them in the days to come.

“I believe the charges are imminent based upon Gardner’s past administrative actions and I believe any charges filed are wholeheartedly unwarranted,” said St. Louis attorney Joel Schwartz, who is serving as legal counsel for the McCloskeys.

Mary Pat Carl, a lawyer who quit her job as a homicide prosecutor after Gardner won election, is attempting to unseat Gardner. She claims that nearly 40 percent of prosecutors have resigned under Gardner’s stewardship, showing how disastrous her tenure has been for the rule of law and public safety.

President Donald Trump has more frequently accused Fox News of being a tool for the globalists in recent months.

Based on their covering for Soros’ role in supporting ANTIFA/BLM terrorists, Trump seems to be correct in his assessment. Fox News has been subverted by globalists, and alternative “America First” cable outlets such as OAN and Newsmax need to be supported by Trump supporters.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending

 
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.