Stanford Study Finds Fake News Helped Hillary More Than Trump

[dannno]

The media narrative has been that Russia manipulated the election with fake news favorable to Trump which helped him win, but it turns out that the fake news which was favorable to Hillary helped her campaign even more according to a study by Stanford University.

Paul Joseph Watson explains how social media was manipulating everything to favor Hillary, which explains why her fake news had so much more exposure to the public.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC9U4Lw9kbQ

[oyarde]

Fake news is intended to elect communist democrats .

[UWDude]

Yeah, Imagine how hillary would have done if she wasn't backed up by the entire MSM and Hollywood. XD

[timosman]

Yeah, Imagine how hillary would have done if she wasn't backed up by the entire MSM and Hollywood. XD

A landslide? Oh, is this what happened? Never mind then.

[CPUd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8MPmpuWAAAAAyn.jpg:large

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwQqNdkyZZo

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sudCmrAsF4

[Zippyjuan]

What the Stanford Study actually says (not the Alex Jones version): http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/



Stanford study examines fake news and the 2016 presidential election

Fabricated stories favoring Donald Trump were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro-Hillary Clinton shares leading up to the election, according to Stanford economist Matthew Gentzkow. Even so, he and his co-author find that the most widely circulated hoaxes were seen by only a small fraction of Americans.

Of all the heated debates surrounding the 2016 presidential race, the controversy over so-called “fake news” and its potential impact on Donald Trump’s victory has been among the fiercest.

Now there’s concrete data proposing that false news stories may not have been as persuasive and influential as is often suggested. But the economists behind the research do not conclude one way or the other whether fake news swayed the election.

On Wednesday, economists Matthew Gentzkow of Stanford and Hunt Allcott of New York University released a study also showing that social media played a much smaller role in the election than some might think.

“A reader of our study could very reasonably say, based on our set of facts, that it is unlikely that fake news swayed the election,” said Gentzkow, an economics professor and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

“But that conclusion ultimately depends on what readers think is a reasonable benchmark for the persuasiveness of an individual fake news story,” he said.

The timing of the working paper, “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election,” is critical. Trump’s victory has been dogged by claims that false news stories – including false reports that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and the pope had endorsed Trump – altered the outcome.

Facebook and other social media sites have also come under attack for allowing fabricated news stories to circulate unchecked on their platforms.

“There are lots of pieces to this puzzle,” said Gentzkow, referring to the impact of social media on the election.

Social media: ‘Important, but not dominant’
In their study, Gentzkow and Allcott analyzed three sets of data. The first tracked the amount of traffic on news websites that was directed by social media. The second examined the top fake news stories identified by BuzzFeed and two prominent fact-checking sites, Snopes and PolitiFact. The third consisted of the researchers’ own post-election online survey of 1,200 voters.

Gentzkow and Allcott show that social media wasn’t the major source of political news for most Americans in 2016; only 14 percent say they relied on Facebook and other social media sites as their most important source of election coverage.

“Social media was an important but not dominant source of news in the run-up to the election,” the authors write. Television, it turns out, remains the go-to place for political news.

In the three months before the election, pro-Trump fabricated stories tracked by the researchers were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro-Clinton shares. Even so, Gentzkow and Allcott find that the most widely circulated hoaxes were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. And only about half of those who saw a false news story believed it.

Even if a voter recalled a fake news story and believed what it said, the story would need to have been surprisingly persuasive to have changed his or her vote.

“For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump, a persuasion rate equivalent to seeing 36 television campaign ads,” the authors conclude.

The study comes with important caveats. Gentzkow said, for example, that a voter doesn’t necessarily need to recall a specific news story in order to have developed a negative view of either Trump or Clinton.

[Anti-Neocon]

What the Stanford Study actually says (not the Alex Jones version): http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/
:D

What ever happened to love for liberty and rationality and truth-seeking? Love for authoritarian Trump has got us sharing fake news videos talking about fake news?

[Zippyjuan]

:D

What ever happened to love for liberty and rationality and truth-seeking? Love for authoritarian Trump has got us sharing fake news videos talking about fake news?

I found the idea of Alex Jones doing a fake piece on fake news pretty funny.

[dannno]

:D

What ever happened to love for liberty and rationality and truth-seeking? Love for authoritarian Trump has got us sharing fake news videos talking about fake news?

Yep, you and zippy should get a hotel room and celebrate your fucking love for liberty. Are you fucking kidding me?

Don't even pretend like you watched the video in the OP.

[dannno]

I found the idea of Alex Jones doing a fake piece on fake news pretty funny.

Ya, of course you would, except it wasn't Alex Jones. It was Paul Joseph Watson. Nice try, though.

[Zippyjuan]

Ya, of course you would, except it wasn't Alex Jones. It was Paul Joseph Watson. Nice try, though.

InfoWars isn't Alex Jones? And the video contradicts your headline as well. It says fake news had no impact on the election.

"You are listening to the Alex Jones Show".

[dannno]

InfoWars isn't Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is Alex Jones, he has a media company called infowars. The person "doing" the piece in the OP was Paul Joseph Watson, infowars superstar.

[dannno]

What the Stanford Study actually says (not the Alex Jones version): http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/

Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton

Ironically, the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited her




http://observer.com/2017/02/stanford-study-fake-news-hillary-clinton-election-loss/

[Swordsmyth]

What the Stanford Study actually says (not the Alex Jones version): http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/

"pro-Trump fabricated stories tracked by the researchers were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro-Clinton shares."

What that says is that ordinary people shared the pro trump stories more, it says nothing about which stories had a bigger impact on the election. Dump had more real activists, but that does not mean the average undecided voter listened to them more than the MSM.