In the USA, Trump supporters are the most prolific users and sharers of "junk news" (a mix of untruth and distastefully presented materials)


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/02/07/quantification-problems.html


#2

I see that their study completely ignored Tumblr, where I’ve had to routinely remind ostensibly critical progressives that Clickhole and the Onion are parodies, that critical thinking is not a weakness, and that black-and-white thinking is a fallacy for a reason.


#3


#4

So are you endorsing the linked article or are you lambasting it? Come on, Cory, tell me what/how to think – I haven’t had my morning coffee yet.


#5

I don’t really see it as a conflation.

If Fox News reported the sky was blue, I’d start to doubt everything I knew about the sky.


#6

Well knock me over with a feather.


#7

Let’s just remember that Trump supporters also skew heavily towards being the least educated members of society. Funny how formal education can correlate with not believing dumbass “news” so readily…


#8

I have to disagree. A story is facts plus interpretation (either overt or situtational). When Trump takes credit for low unemployment (true fact) but purposefully misses the context, he is deceiving.


#9

Golly. I just don’t know what to think anymore. Where’s the good ole PTL Club for these nutty times?


#10

too which the glorious piece of shit and commander in chief will simply say…

democracy in tail spin…


#11

FAKE NEWS… continues to be a thing that unites Trump supporters, then?

Yeah, fake news sites are very consistent about only putting out fake news. Because they’re not actually news sites, even when some facts fit in with their propaganda needs, they still don’t accurately convey the information.


#12

tumblr_p3l4fbHaa31w3u03zo1_540


#13

Dumping Facebook junk:


#14

It also conflates junk “sites” with junk “stories.” A true story is true even if it is told by a habitual liar, and it is a form of ad-hominem itself to disqualify a true story because you don’t like the person who’s telling it.

I think they’re trying to get at the idea of reputable media outlets. Most media outlets are far from perfect (e.g the NYT re: Iraq in 2003) but there’s a difference between those that genuinely try for the qualities in question and those that don’t. Know-Nothings can’t or won’t make those distinctions, requiring as they do things like critical thinking, education, a knowledge of history, scepticism about authority, etc.


#15

Yes but your example contains some truth but isn’t true in of itself. The outright lie is where he is representing himself as the cause for low unemployment.

Cory is saying that if the shithole said “Unemployment is low.” and went on to say “I don’t believe it has any correlation to my presidency.” then it would fit your definition of a story, also be true and be from an unlikable source. (…and my first instinct would be to sneer and want look for some reason to dismiss his story as bullshit.)


#16

As a general rule, we pinkos accept the concept of facts and truth and therefore can be corrected and enlightened. Conservatives, on the other hand, have ignorant beliefs that they need constantly reinforced with yet more lies.
In other words, nothing really surprising at the linked piece.
What has to be added though is the dishonest spew of mainstream reportage makes the fake news idiocy credible, lays a foundation for this crap. Just one example of this corporate media: Like cigarette packs have warning labels, every story about what the current POTUS has to be qualified by the decades-proven fact that nearly everything his says is some sort of lie, and often contradicted eventually. That is, that the person their quoting suffers from such a huge lack of credibility that what they’re reporting is likely BS.


#17

giphy


#18

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.