How Fake News Goes Viral

[MikeG]

The New York Times did an interesting piece on a fake story that was quickly debunked by Snopes and a few other sources, but illustrates the process of how quickly a combination of bad (or no) fact checking and social media can spread faulty information.

Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory — one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting.

Mr. Tucker's post was shared at least 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 350,000 times on Facebook. The problem is that Mr. Tucker got it wrong. There were no such buses packed with paid protesters.

But that didn't matter.

Content from external source

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Tucker did little research to see if his claim was true or not. [My emphasis]

Mr. Tucker said he had performed a Google search to see if any conferences were being held in the area but did not find anything. (The buses were, in fact, hired by a company called Tableau Software, which was holding a conference that drew more than 13,000 people.)

“I did think in the back of my mind there could be other explanations, but it just didn’t seem plausible,” he said in an interview, noting that he had posted as a “private citizen who had a tiny Twitter following.”

He added, “I’m also a very busy businessman and I don’t have time to fact-check everything that I put out there, especially when I don’t think it’s going out there for wide consumption.”

But it was too late. A combination of social media and conspiracy sites took off with the story.

Content from external source

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Two days after his original tweet on November 9th, Tucker posted a retraction with little success. The lack of an impact was actually measurable.

After midnight Mr. Tucker deleted his original tweet, then posted an image of it stamped with the word “false” for posterity. It did not receive much attention.

After a week, that message had 29 retweets and 27 likes. The Snopes article has been shared about 5,800 times according to its website, a fraction of the number for the fake version of the news. Faced with the impact of his initial tweet, Mr. Tucker, who now has about 960 Twitter followers, allowed himself a moment of reflection.

Content from external source

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


There has been an uptick in stories in fake news lately.

The Washington Post featured this story today.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-table-main_opportunists-633pm:homepage/story

And another story from the Washington Post on Alex Jones from last Friday:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...3dc190-ab3e-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html

It seems that the linkages between the incoming Trump administration and conspiracy theories has focused more mainstream attention on the potentially serious consequences of fake, faulty, and poorly researched ideas.

This process is old hat for Metabunk, but it seems apparent that a larger discussion is now taking place.

I see that as a good trend or at least I hope it is. Time will tell.

 

[deirdre]

I see that as a good trend or at least I hope it is.

yea if they debunk liberal bunk as well. Liberal leaning newspapers 'demonizing' [Conservatives] Trump and his supporters seems pretty par-for-the-course to me.

 

[tinkertailor]

I think a lot of it is that people don't read the actual articles, just the headlines. When it's on Facebook and you're strapped for time, "Giant Weasel Spotted in Milwaukee" might sound official. When you read the article and find out that the giant weasel was just a normal-sized German Shepherd mistaken for a weasel you might not share it but if you really strongly believe in the presence of rodents of unusual size in the country (as a hardcore anti-trump person might feel about the abovementioned article), the headline is enough. Then it gets shared because it's TRUE and it flies out of proportion.

 

[MikeG]

yea if they debunk liberal bunk as well. Liberal leaning newspapers 'demonizing' [Conservatives] Trump and his supporters seems pretty par-for-the-course to me.

I agree, but I am curious. What would you classify as liberal bunk?

 

[deirdre]

I agree, but I am curious. What would you classify as liberal bunk?

bunk (eg misrepresenting studies etc) that pushes liberal agendas, liberal opinions, anti-conservative agenda bunk. i dont really understand your question.

Unfortunately your OP kinda has two seperate topics. How news (fake or otherwise) goes viral , is a different topic then "is fake news on the rise" or "is MSM actually starting to crack down on bunk". And we should probably stick to the title topic, although i couldnt help but commment on your comment as i dont see it as a good "trend", i see it as just normal liberal type journalism (re: your linked stories) that has been happening for as long as i remember. They see a 'story' where they can point to conservatives and show how stupid they are, and they are printing it because it's a good click bait story. (conservative leaning outlets do the same in reverse)

I'm not saying they shouldnt cover the story of course. Just saying it doesnt seem like a "trend" to me. I've seen MSM debunk bunk in the past, and i've seen them spread bunk.

And how are we defining "fake news"? There is satire and outright fake websites that pose as news sites (your second example..which is good to inform people about), but then there is fake news in MSM broadcasts and publications all the time too. And then there is (your first example) the random twitter user who posts something to his friends, is mistaken and it goes viral.

Speaking of which: it’s worth remembering that sophisticated-but-misleading stories from the establishment media are probably just as harmful as fake news stories.


I mean, even the coverage of fake news is “fake.” Paul Horner, the creator of many hoaxes on Facebook, claims he was the reason Trump won the 2016 presidential election. His contention is now carried by news outlets everywhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and so on). The story is its own kind of fake news because there’s absolutely no evidence to back up Horner’s claims that he had any effect on the outcome of the presidential election. He is only important because his story confirms the professional Left’s notions about Trump voters.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/dont-kid-liberals-just-susceptible-fake-news/

Content from external source

I agree with @tinkertailor news stories, fake or otherwise or somewhere in between, go viral because they have click bait headlines that conform to people's predisposed biases. so they forward them.

Of course, i always think people all emotional about protesters, whereever they came from, is silly and weird. Who cares if a protest is organized? Most protests are. I dont see what the big deal is either way. I wouldn't think there was anything odd if a bunch of busses pulled up to protest Bush at some speech or whatnot.

The real question is why does the NYT care if Trump wants to behave like a paranoid weirdo or what eric Tucker thinks? 350,000 isnt really all that big. its reddit and facebook which means GLOBAL.

dont get me wrong i like any debunks as i think it makes people think a bit. But maybe the NYT and WP esp should spend a bit more time worrying about their own bunk and misreprentations and mistakes as they have a much larger audience.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree, but I am curious. What would you classify as liberal bunk?

Bunk doesn't have to be right-wing, you know

It does seem that most debunkers have a liberal stance, but by no means all do. And there has been plenty of bunk flying around the internet aimed at discrediting Trump and co, too.

 

[MikeG]

bunk (eg misrepresenting studies etc) that pushes liberal agendas, liberal opinions, anti-conservative agenda bunk. i dont really understand your question.

Unfortunately your OP kinda has two seperate topics. How news (fake or otherwise) goes viral , is a different topic then "is fake news on the rise" or "is MSM actually starting to crack down on bunk". And we should probably stick to the title topic, although i couldnt help but commment on your comment as i dont see it as a good "trend", i see it as just normal liberal type journalism (re: your linked stories) that has been happening for as long as i remember. They see a 'story' where they can point to conservatives and show how stupid they are, and they are printing it because it's a good click bait story. (conservative leaning outlets do the same in reverse)

I'm not saying they shouldnt cover the story of course. Just saying it doesnt seem like a "trend" to me. I've seen MSM debunk bunk in the past, and i've seen them spread bunk.

And how are we defining "fake news"? There is satire and outright fake websites that pose as news sites (your second example..which is good to inform people about), but then there is fake news in MSM broadcasts and publications all the time too. And then there is (your first example) the random twitter user who posts something to his friends, is mistaken and it goes viral.

Speaking of which: it’s worth remembering that sophisticated-but-misleading stories from the establishment media are probably just as harmful as fake news stories.


I mean, even the coverage of fake news is “fake.” Paul Horner, the creator of many hoaxes on Facebook, claims he was the reason Trump won the 2016 presidential election. His contention is now carried by news outlets everywhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and so on). The story is its own kind of fake news because there’s absolutely no evidence to back up Horner’s claims that he had any effect on the outcome of the presidential election. He is only important because his story confirms the professional Left’s notions about Trump voters.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/dont-kid-liberals-just-susceptible-fake-news/

Content from external source

I agree with @tinkertailor news stories, fake or otherwise or somewhere in between, go viral because they have click bait headlines that conform to people's predisposed biases. so they forward them.

Of course, i always think people all emotional about protesters, whereever they came from, is silly and weird. Who cares if a protest is organized? Most protests are. I dont see what the big deal is either way. I wouldn't think there was anything odd if a bunch of busses pulled up to protest Bush at some speech or whatnot.

The real question is why does the NYT care if Trump wants to behave like a paranoid weirdo or what eric Tucker thinks? 350,000 isnt really all that big. its reddit and facebook which means GLOBAL.

dont get me wrong i like any debunks as i think it makes people think a bit. But maybe the NYT and WP esp should spend a bit more time worrying about their own bunk and misreprentations and mistakes as they have a much larger audience.

You make a lot of points. All fair.

The Huffington Post had a story last week that might fall under the category of “liberal bunk,” although it poked fun at the whole click-bait aspect of fake news.

Here is exactly what we need to do to save our great society. The information here is what we’ve all been waiting for. By doing this we can make Bernie the president on Inauguration day rather than President-elect Donald Trump.

Actually, no we can’t. There is no loophole that allows a random person to assume the office of president. That’s pretty basic common sense but yet you clicked or even shared this article anyway. Now that right there is the real point of this post…

Content from external source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...trump-with-little_us_5829f25fe4b02b1f5257a6b7

As far as past media stories on internet bunk, you are also right. The Washington Post ran a column on the topic of fake news for over a year. It concluded last December.

There is nothing — NOTHING — too crazy for the Internet hoax beat. Pregnancy by flu shot? Six days of total darkness? In the past 82 weeks, I’m prettyyyy sure I’ve seen just about everything.

We launched “What was Fake” in May 2014 in response to what seemed, at the time, like an epidemic of urban legends and Internet pranks: light-hearted, silly things, for the most part, like new flavors of Oreos and babies with absurd names.

Since then, those sorts of rumors and pranks haven’t slowed down, exactly, but the pace and tenor of fake news has changed. Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it’s now often as simple as clicking around for an “about” or “disclaimer” page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that’s frequently no longer the case. Headlines like “Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck” go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude — even hate.

Content from external source

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ernet-this-week-why-this-is-the-final-column/

What constitutes "fake" news is also pretty broad. Agreed. We could include campaign rhetoric, advertising, MSM reports, etc. all of which generally conform to an individual's predispositions.

But what I think is different now is the level CT belief has reached. We aren't talking about esoteric, fringe groups living primarily within the confines of the internet. Now, these theories are inside the Beltway, which is why they have entered into a more serious level of discussion.

A new, interesting thread might be on presidential conspiracy beliefs. I doubt the Trump administration is the first on that count.

 

[Trailblazer]

We're also seeing the "fake news" banner getting raised where it shouldn't, though. For instance some newspapers are claiming that the "pizzagate" theories originated with fake news sites:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/2...-pizzeria-ensnares-kanye-west/amp/?amp_js_v=6

The articles appeared on Facebook and on websites such as The New Nationalist and The Vigilant Citizen, with one headline blaring: “Pizzagate: How 4Chan Uncovered the Sick World of Washington’s Occult Elite.”

Content from external source

Whatever one thinks of the pizzagate claims, it certainly doesn't seem to be true that they originated as "fake news". They arose organically in the usual places (4chan, Reddit etc) and are interpretations of real documents, photos etc. Whether those interpretations are correct is another matter, of course.

 

[tadaaa]

I quite liked this story

some enterprising teens in the former Czechoslovakia seemed to hit a rich seam of cash

“This is the news of the millennium!” said the story on WorldPoliticus.com. Citing unnamed FBI sources, it claimed Hillary Clinton will be indicted in 2017 for crimes related to her email scandal.

“Your Prayers Have Been Answered,” declared the headline.

For Trump supporters, that certainly seemed to be the case. They helped the baseless story generate over 140,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.

Meanwhile, roughly 6,000 miles away in a small town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a young man watched as money began trickling into his Google AdSense account."


https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilve...-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.ar2ZXoJAn#.kpOnqgmMN

 

[Trailblazer]

Another interesting study showing that even young people who grew up with online news and social media are not good at differentiating between real and fake news, or news and advertising:

https://consumerist.com/2016/11/22/study-students-easily-duped-by-fake-news-sponsored-content/

You might assume that a child raised on online content may be better positioned to tell when news and information is coming from legitimate sources and when that source is a fake or an ad. However, the results of a new study appear to indicate that this always-connected generation is no better equipped to sort fact from fiction online.

“Overall, young people’s ability to reason about the information on the Internet can be summed up in one word: bleak,” concludes a new report from researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Education, which found that “when it comes to evaluating information that flows through social media channels, [today’s students] are easily duped.”

Content from external source

 

[Trailblazer]

And an NPR interview with a fake news creator.

Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

"The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction," Coler says.

Content from external source

 

[Critical Thinker]

An interesting, but unsurprising, development in how the fake news propagates and why it is being generated has been written about in The Washington Post along with a listing of many of the sources that have helped to disseminate the propaganda from the propornot website. Most of these outlets are well known purveyors of bunk and conspiracy theories that most of us are already familiar with....

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say




Craig Timberg November 24

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

Content from external source

Russian Fake "News" is Influencing American Citizens

A large-scale information campaign is deceptively injecting Russian propaganda into American public discourse online. It operates on both the left and the right, generating thousands of fake news articles, memes, tweets, and videos. Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart. It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests.


Old-Style Russian Propaganda New-Style Russian Propaganda

It's Bigger Than Just Hacked E-Mails

Russia’s attempts to influence the US election via hacking and selectively leaking sensitive US government and political information have been widely documented, but Russia is not conducting those operations in isolation. Their hacking efforts are accompanied by a large-scale, long-term, and remarkably effective campaign to build online propaganda outlets targeting US audiences. These sites have US audiences estimated in the millions, parrot Russian state-owned propaganda, and relentlessly attack the important investigative work done by actual American journalists.

Russian Propaganda Targets All Americans

While Russian influence operations resemble a marketing effort in some ways, only a few dozen individual outlets ("sources") actually produce large amounts of original propaganda content. That content is then echoed, extended, and amplified through an immense number of secondary sites ("repeaters"). Both source and repeater outlets target a wide range of audiences: US military veterans, Wall St. insiders and finance specialists, natural-food and health enthusiasts, goldbugs, African-Americans, white Americans, peace activists, religious people, 9/11-"truthers", and politically-active Americans across and outside the political spectrum. For example:

Content from external source

Link to the full list

 

[Greylandra]

This is metabunk. start providing citations as per Posting Guidelines or i'll ban you for a week. Making me work xtra hard because you are too lazy to post links, irritates me. you have 50 IQ points on me, if i can manage to follow the rules so can you.

An interesting, but unsurprising, development in how the fake news propagates and why it is being generated has been written about in The Washington Post along with a listing of many of the sources that have helped to disseminate the propaganda from the propornot website. Most of these outlets are well known purveyors of bunk and conspiracy theories that most of us are already familiar with....

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say




Craig Timberg November 24

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

Content from external source

Russian Fake "News" is Influencing American Citizens

A large-scale information campaign is deceptively injecting Russian propaganda into American public discourse online. It operates on both the left and the right, generating thousands of fake news articles, memes, tweets, and videos. Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart. It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests.


Old-Style Russian Propaganda New-Style Russian Propaganda

It's Bigger Than Just Hacked E-Mails

Russia’s attempts to influence the US election via hacking and selectively leaking sensitive US government and political information have been widely documented, but Russia is not conducting those operations in isolation. Their hacking efforts are accompanied by a large-scale, long-term, and remarkably effective campaign to build online propaganda outlets targeting US audiences. These sites have US audiences estimated in the millions, parrot Russian state-owned propaganda, and relentlessly attack the important investigative work done by actual American journalists.

Russian Propaganda Targets All Americans

While Russian influence operations resemble a marketing effort in some ways, only a few dozen individual outlets ("sources") actually produce large amounts of original propaganda content. That content is then echoed, extended, and amplified through an immense number of secondary sites ("repeaters"). Both source and repeater outlets target a wide range of audiences: US military veterans, Wall St. insiders and finance specialists, natural-food and health enthusiasts, goldbugs, African-Americans, white Americans, peace activists, religious people, 9/11-"truthers", and politically-active Americans across and outside the political spectrum. For example:

Content from external source

Link to the full list

Sure would be nice to see some data showing a link of any kind between Russia and any of the "fake news" sites listed. "Two teams of independent researchers..." Just who is tossing out "fake news" here with no facts? Shouldn't an accusation of Russia attempting to influence the US election be accompanied by at least a modicum of evidence? This is a nuclear armed nation we're talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure would be nice to see some data showing a link of any kind between Russia and any of the "fake news" sites listed. "Two teams of independent researchers..." Just who is tossing out "fake news" here with no facts? Shouldn't an accusation of Russia attempting to influence the US election be accompanied by at least a modicum of evidence? This is a nuclear armed nation we're talking about.

The ProporNot site seems to be viewed pretty skeptically by other fact-checking websites. Most of the sites they listed as "allies" say they had never heard of Propornot and don't wish to be associated with it.

For example see this tweet from Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat:

Source: https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/802166958426914816


And more:

 

[deirdre]

The ProporNot site seems to be viewed pretty skeptically by other fact-checking websites

it's viewed pretty skeptially by me too. Just for the record.
@Greylandra 'that which is presented without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence'. Unless propornot releases some data, it is no more than an 'opinion piece' at best.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Here is a nice vid on how a certain bit of bad science on AGW has proliferated across the net due to bloggers repeating false claims based on stuff they don't understand and didn't vet. Don't know how to synopsize it, so I won't try.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18

 

[Rory]

Pizzagate and fake news made the BBC front page today:


http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985

 

[Trailblazer]

Pizzagate and fake news made the BBC front page today:

I don't think "Pizzagate" is really connected to fake news, as such. It's a "theory" (and I use the term loosely) that emerged organically from 4chan and Reddit witch-hunts, rather than a planted propaganda story.

 

[Mick West]

I don't think "Pizzagate" is really connected to fake news, as such. It's a "theory" (and I use the term loosely) that emerged organically from 4chan and Reddit witch-hunts, rather than a planted propaganda story.

I'm not sure the origin is that important, it got picked up and repeated by various fake news outlets, so it's fake news now, regardless of how it started.
https://www.google.com/search?num=50&q=pizzagate+before+it's+news

 

[Trailblazer]

On that note, @Mick West, are you planning to address any of the Pizzagate claims, or are they too vague for Metabunk? (There are some concrete claims that can be debunked, such as James Alefantis being a false name, etc)

 

[Mick West]

On that note, @Mick West, are you planning to address any of the Pizzagate claims, or are they too vague for Metabunk? (There are some concrete claims that can be debunked, such as James Alefantis being a false name, etc)

I have no plans, the story already has sufficient coverage. If there's something substantive that follows the posting guidelines, and has not been debunked elsewhere, then maybe.

 

[Critical Thinker]

Sure would be nice to see some data showing a link of any kind between Russia and any of the "fake news" sites listed. "Two teams of independent researchers..." Just who is tossing out "fake news" here with no facts? Shouldn't an accusation of Russia attempting to influence the US election be accompanied by at least a modicum of evidence? This is a nuclear armed nation we're talking about.

I did not see anyone claiming there is a "link of any kind between Russia and any of the "fake news" sites listed" , the studies and claims deal with how some alternative news sites share and re-post fake stories that originated from Russia's propaganda apperatus, and examines the possible motivations behind sharing those stories.

A couple of the websites on the list are run by well known conspiracy promoters, Mike Adams (NaturalNews) and Alex Jones (Infowars), both who make appearances on RT (Russia Today), which is one of Russia's state Sponsoned propaganda outlets. These men get to promote their own websites that share fake news stories from RT.

Link

Uber-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been interviewed on numerous occasions by RT,[12][13][14][15] and other conspiracy theorists that have appeared as guests on his radio program and been interviewed (in most cases several times) by RT include Mike Adams,[16] Mark Dice,[17] David Ray Griffin,[18] Jesse Ventura,[19] Lyndon LaRouche[20] and Gerald Celente.[21] It's a needle-thread away from Scopie's Law status.

Content from external source

Here are the links to the studies and with very little effort a Google search will provide more coverage from News outlets that provide sources and citations to back up their stories of Russia using propaganda to influence public sentiment (as is done by many other governments, including in the US and elsewhere).


CNN Story Link

But importantly, Watts says, Russia's goal wasn't just to elect Trump. "The goal is to erode trust in mainstream media, public figures, government institutions -- everything that holds the unity of the Republic together."

Content from external source

Watts says that, during the election campaign, three main groups traded in fake news: passionate Trump supporters; people out to make money by driving followers to their websites with "click bait" stories; and the Russian propaganda apparatus.

Content from external source

Link to the Propornot study

The second study was conducted by an anonymous, self-described "non-partisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds" who call themselves PropOrNot.

The group says it, too, analyzed tweets and other social media messages ricocheting around the web and found many of the same phrases, which it interpreted as indicating that they came from the same single source.
In some cases, fake news was spread knowingly; in other cases, activists and others simply picked up and passed on tidbits they liked, in what the authors describe as an "online echo chamber."
Many different groups spew fake news but Russia is currently the industry leader."

PropOrNot statement to CNN

Their conclusion: Russia has made "large-scale, long-term efforts to build online 'fake news' propaganda outlets with significant audiences in the US."

Content from external source

Link to Rand Corp study Titled:

The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model
Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It


Accuracy in Media story link

Russian Dupes Behind Bilderberger Protests
by Cliff Kincaid on June 4, 2012
Share:


The major news organizations have been driven by the Drudge Report and WorldNetDaily to cover protests against a meeting of the “Bilderbergers” at a Marriott hotel outside Washington, D.C. The stories usually feature Alex Jones, a Texas-based radio host who regularly appears on Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) television, or Daniel Estulin, a Russian-born writer whose book on the Bilderbergers made him one of Fidel Castro’s favorite authors and prompted a personal meeting with the Cuban dictator in 2010.

It was this meeting, where Castro insisted that Osama bin Laden was a CIA agent, which led to a surge of international media interest, mostly from the communist press, in the Bilderbergers.

Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller treated the protests as a joke, asking some of the protesters, “If they’re [Bilderbergers] so powerful, why are they staying in a Marriott?” Alex Jones was confronted as well, but dismissed Weinstein as a joke himself. Among other things, Weinstein wondered how powerful the group was, considering that it is said to have been responsible for the European Union, which is now collapsing because of irresponsible spending practices and debt.

Conservative talk-show host Ben Barrack appreciated Weinstein’s controversial approach, but said that the motives of Jones and his collaborators have to be analyzed. He said, “The Alex Jones / Ron Paul / 9/11 Truther movements have long maintained that the Bilderberg globalists are a much greater threat to our Republic than are the Islamists. Whenever you bring up the Islamic threat to western civilization, it’s all but ignored because the New World Order [NWO] crowd is actually behind the Islamists’ rise according to the Jones crew… Conversely, Islamists love Alex Jones. He runs interference for them by pushing 9/11 Conspiracy theories while publicly seeing them as a threat not worth dealing with because the NWO is actually using them for its own agenda. Shouldn’t we begin considering the possibility that Jones is actively working toward that end instead of being a dupe?”

As Jones became a media celebrity for his protests, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes China and Russia, has been quietly preparing a major conference for this week in Beijing. The group is described by sympathizers as “a powerful counterforce against U.S. world domination efforts” and dedicated to “the creation of a new international political and economic order.”

The SCO is a governmental organization that is perceived by some analysts as a nascent anti-American military alliance, similar to the old Soviet-sponsored Warsaw Pact. It holds regular “security exercises” involving military personnel from member countries.

Observer state members of the SCO include Iran and Pakistan.

It has already been publicly announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin will take part in a Heads of State Council meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing and will meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the event.

By contrast, the Bilderberg group seems to be comprised mostly of private individuals, some with great wealth and power, who debate domestic and foreign policy issues. The group maintains a website and advertises its meetings, enabling the protesters, led by Alex Jones, to show up and draw attention to its activities.

Antics such as these protests, complete with bullhorns, have caused responsible conservatives to label Jones a provocateur because he diverts attention from serious issues and real threats to America.

We pointed out in a previous column: “Russia Today is eager to publicize Alex Jones and his claims about 9/11, the Bilderbergers, bankers, and various other villains and culprits because they divert attention from the increasingly totalitarian nature of the Russian regime and the military threat that Russia still poses to American interests.” Jones appeared on Russia Today to defend the Russian invasion of the independent country of Georgia, a former Soviet republic. He blamed the U.S., NATO and Israel for somehow provoking Russia.

Content from external source

 

[deirdre]

citations to back up their stories of Russia using propaganda to influence public sentiment

adrian chen and Bellingcat weigh in

I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment: “That takes a lot of work, and we’re an all-volunteer crew.” Instead, he urged me to read the Drudge Report myself, suggesting that its nature would be apparent.

....
These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself. Yet PropOrNot claims to be uninterested in differentiating between organizations that are explicit tools of the Russian state and so-called “useful idiots,” which echo Russian propaganda out of sincerely held beliefs. “We focus on behavior, not motivation,” they write.

To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist.

Content from external source

But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess. “To be honest, it looks like a pretty amateur attempt,” Eliot Higgins, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian fake-news stories on his Web site, Bellingcat, for years, told me. “I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note.”

Content from external source

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

 

[Critical Thinker]

I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet.

Media Matters story Link

The Drudge Report Has Linked To Russian Propaganda Sites At Least 91 Times In 2016



The Drudge Report, the website owned and operated by conservative gossipmonger Matt Drudge, has linked to RT.com -- the website for the news service owned by the Russian government -- at least 67 times in 2016. According to an analysis by Media Matters for America, The Drudge Report also repeatedly linked to stories from other Russian-owned news sites, Sputnik News (22 times), and TASS (twice).

RT (previously known as Russia Today) broadcasts via satellite in Russian, English, and Spanish around the world and hosts its official website at RT.com. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the network as an attempt to introduce “another strong player on the world’s scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also ... try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams.”

Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, reporter and former Moscow-based correspondent Julia Ioffe described RT as “the Kremlin’s propaganda outlet” that has at times sought to “stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering.”

In recent months, controversy has grown about apparent attempts by the Russian government to interfere in or influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Content from external source

Drudge has repeatedly used his site to promote stories that idolize Putin, while also painting America, its government, and figures like President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton in a negative light.

Over the last year, the Drudge Report has linked to several RT stories in this same vein. These include:

A story headlined “Russia to reveal location of US military satellites...” (paired with another story claiming the Kremlin is working on a “teleportation” program).

A claim from the Russian government alleging that a U.S. Navy destroyer was “dangerously close” to a Russian boat. Yet in other reporting, U.S. officials said the Russian ship was demonstrating “unsafe and unprofessional” maneuvers.

A “vow” from Putin to “neutralize” what RT described as a “US missile shield threat.”

A column claiming “Satan Worship Rises In USA.”

Content from external source

 

[deirdre]

Media Matters story Link

other than the 4 "links" ( i clicked one but didnt see the story on the archive page there), that story is not data. data is link me to the 91 stories. then tell me how many stories total the Drudge Report posted in 2016.

(satan worship rises in the US... )

 

[Critical Thinker]

other than the 4 "links" ( i clicked one but didnt see the story on the archive page there), that story is not data. data is link me to the 91 stories. then tell me how many stories total the Drudge Report posted in 2016.

(satan worship rises in the US... )

What is the claim that has been made that you feel is bunk and why do you feel that it is bunk (did you expect the story to link to all 91 RT stories and all 22 Sputnik stories?) and how is that relevant to the topic of the thread, which is about 'how fake news goes viral'?

How The Drudge Report Became Vladimir Putin’s Top Media Cheerleader , there are a number of links in that piece that illustrate many of the times that the Drudge Report has done as the headline claims.

 

[deirdre]

which is about 'how fake news goes viral'?

it doesnt. Youre the one that quoted Adrien Chan and then provided a "mediamatters" story as if that was the data he was requesting.

proponot's unproven assertions going viral is a nice example of how any news goes viral. Pick a headline that plays to people's emotional biases and they will spread it regardless if the content is "iffy", bunk or sounding like a conspiracy theory webpage.

 

[Critical Thinker]

it doesnt. Youre the one that quoted Adrien Chan and then provided a "mediamatters" story as if that was the data he was requesting.

proponot's unproven assertions going viral is a nice example of how any news goes viral. Pick a headline that plays to people's emotional biases and they will spread it regardless if the content is "iffy", bunk or sounding like a conspiracy theory webpage.

Sorry, I looked through my posts and do not see where I cited 'Adrien Chan' . As to my posting of the mediamatters link, that was in response to your own post where you cited 'Content from external source':

I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet.

Since I didn't find the details in the part of the report that they released I looked for other sources for verification or not that "Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet" and they do seem to have echoed Russian propaganda according what I found.


I had posted the link I found when I searched for info about whatever study or details have come out about the propornot methodology in post 22. Please cite what assertion they had made that you call an unproven assertion.


I am seeking to understand what you feel they have claimed that it disputable and have the reference provided to the assertion.

From their website this is their assertion

An Initial Set of Sites That Reliably Echo Russian Propaganda

Content from external source

I did not go through the entire list of websites and confirm the assertion, but of the few that I have looked at in the past... yes, those have 'reliably echoed Russian propaganda'.

 

[deirdre]

Sorry, I looked through my posts and do not see where I cited 'Adrien Chan'

this was adrien talking in his article.

what you feel they have claimed that it disputable

the dispute is they provide no actual data. they list their 'methodology' (which is ridiculous in the first place) but then just announce (paraphrased) 'we find Drudge report (for ex) meets these criteria'.

and we just have to take their word for it. ex. what do you mean by "reliably"? what do they mean by "consistently"?
Basically if a conspiracy theorist wrote that report (which they did), you would toss it for not providing actual data. That's all i'm saying.

And if you think i'm going to "do the research yourself" (which is what every good CTer says and 'fake news outlet' expects of it's readers, knowing full well they won't), they've got another thing coming.

 

[Critical Thinker]

I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet.

this was adrien talking in his article.

Thank you for the clarification. That was not me who provided that excerpt from Adrien, actually you had introduced that content from an external source in post #23 without citation or rationale how that is relevant to the thread's topic and then you said in post #27 that I "quoted Adrien Chan" which you stated was why you introduced that content when I inquired why you provided that quote in post #23. Not knowing what particular instances propornot had found from Drudge that led to their inclusion on the list, I then provided a mediamatters article that goes into the many instances where Drudge echoed Russian propaganda in response to the quoted query you posted. I do not know if the 'monitoring report' that they put out was just a preliminary release of what they found, with the full data set to be released at a later time.

Since they have called it a report and they did not (yet) provide all their data since the release of their report last Saturday, I looked into the what the definition of a report is and whether a report would also have the full data set and that does not seem to be a requirement:

Report Definition from Massey University website

What is a report?
A report is a specific form of writing that is organised around concisely identifying and examining issues, events, or findings that have happened in a physical sense, such as events that have occurred within an organisation, or findings from a research investigation.

These events can also pertain to events or issues that have been presented within a body of literature. The key to report writing is informing the reader simply and objectively about all relevant issues. There are three features that, together, characterise report writing at a very basic level: a pre-defined structure, independent sections, and reaching unbiased conclusions.

Content from external source

Having them release their data if they want to publish this for peer review would be required. I also have to say that based on my own experience/observations (anecdotally), I've noticed that of the websites on the list that I had been to previously have echoed and cited fake News stories/Propaganda on RT. If there is an instance on the list that is an exception they offer to retract the name.

If you have any questions, or run an outlet which you feel has been unfairly categorized, please contact us. We are happy to remove any outlet whose operators understand how Putin's Russia is a brutal authoritarian kleptocracy that uses "fake news" as online propaganda, and resolves to help do something about it.

Content from external source

List v0.0.7:
Removed following constructive conversations with outlet operators: aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk, abovetopsecret.com, counterpunch.org, nutritionfacts.org, russia-direct.org
Added: 4thmedia.org, nsnbc.me, presstv.com, theunhivedmind.com, sana.sy

Content from external source

The part about "...and resolves to help do something about it" I do not care for, since whether or not an outlet's operators "understand" all that stuff, has no bearing upon whether the websites on the list, have or have not, on multiple occasions cited Russian propaganda.. If I do not see evidence of an instance where a name on the list doesn't conform to their own criteria for being on said list and they do not retract the name, then I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[Leifer]

Sites listed on the PropOrNot "list", often highlight and describe "trending" stories, whether they are true or not.
If a website uses "weak (or second-hand) sources"......it's the result of the social web's unfortunate way of "Chinese Whispers".
......or, that it is trending as truth.



source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVE9GJevuN8

 

[Critical Thinker]

This is reminiscent of how Conspiracy Promotion websites seem to cross-link to one another and Facebook and YouTube web pages that share their bunk, generating more hits that also has the effect of selling advertising space for more $$.

In The Guardian

Jonathan Albright, assistant professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, said that rightwing websites had launched a new “information war”, and that that they were winning. His research has shown that fake news and extremist sites have created a vast network of links to each other and mainstream sites that has enabled them to game Google’s algorithm. The top eight out of 10 results for the Google search “was Hitler bad?”, for example, are links to Holocaust denial sites including the neo-Nazi site, StormFront.org.

Albright’s research has shown that fake news and information is a far bigger structural problem than had been previously realised. He has mapped a “vast satellite system that is encroaching on the mainstream news system”. Websites propagating extreme rightwing propaganda have thrown out thousands of hyperlinks that connect to each other and to mainstream news sources, such as YouTube and Facebook, and he says they “are growing in strength and influence every day”.

Content from external source

 

[SR1419]

I don't think "Pizzagate" is really connected to fake news

it got picked up and repeated by various fake news outlets, so it's fake news now

It doesnt help when the person selected to be National Security Advisor- Michael Flynn- (and his son) is also propagating the fake news. I find this to be really troubling.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227

Now some say Flynn’s fondness for spreading fake news casts doubt on his fitness to serve as the White House’s national security adviser, suggesting that he either can’t spot a blatant falsehood or is just ideologically bent to believe the worst of his perceived enemies.

The flak began flying anew after Sunday’s shooting at a Washington pizza restaurant that had been targeted by false, internet-fed rumors accusing it of being the epicenter of a satanic child-trafficking conspiracy involving Clinton and her allies. Flynn had twice used Twitter to promote similar, only slightly less outrageous hoaxes in the past month, including a claim that Clinton’s campaign manager takes part in occult rituals in which bodily fluids are consumed.

Content from external source

Source: https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/794000841518776320

 

[MikeG]

It doesnt help when the person selected to be National Security Advisor- Michael Flynn- (and his son) is also propagating the fake news. I find this to be really troubling.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227

Now some say Flynn’s fondness for spreading fake news casts doubt on his fitness to serve as the White House’s national security adviser, suggesting that he either can’t spot a blatant falsehood or is just ideologically bent to believe the worst of his perceived enemies.

The flak began flying anew after Sunday’s shooting at a Washington pizza restaurant that had been targeted by false, internet-fed rumors accusing it of being the epicenter of a satanic child-trafficking conspiracy involving Clinton and her allies. Flynn had twice used Twitter to promote similar, only slightly less outrageous hoaxes in the past month, including a claim that Clinton’s campaign manager takes part in occult rituals in which bodily fluids are consumed.

Content from external source

Source: https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/794000841518776320

It was somewhat heartening to see that Michael Flynn was fired by the incoming administration.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday fired one of his transition team’s staff members, Michael G. Flynn, the son of Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, for using Twitter to spread a fake news story about Hillary Clinton that led to an armed confrontation in a pizza restaurant in Washington.

The uproar over Mr. Flynn’s Twitter post cast a harsh spotlight on the views that he and his father, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, aired on social media throughout the presidential campaign. Both men have shared fake news stories alleging that Mrs. Clinton committed felonies, and have posted their own Twitter messages that at times have crossed into Islamophobia.

But their social media musings apparently attracted little attention from Mr. Trump or his transition team before a North Carolina man fired a rifle on Sunday inside Comet Ping Pong, which was the subject of false stories tying it and the Clinton campaign to a child sex trafficking ring.

Content from external source

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/u...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[Critical Thinker]

It doesnt help when the person selected to be National Security Advisor- Michael Flynn- (and his son) is also propagating the fake news. I find this to be really troubling.

When a person with a large following spreads fake news and conspiracy theories on social media (Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet)(An unsubstantiated theory suggesting a Monsanto pesticide caused an uptick in microcephaly births in Brazil reached a tipping point when it was promoted by George Takei) (Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds), it exposes wider audiences to the misinformation. Sometimes the person will spread the fake news because they are a 'true believer' and in other instances it is in order to make 'political hay' to advantage themselves or to slime/disadvantage another and create fear/anger/distrust (All of Donald Trump’s Birther Tweets). Sometimes for multiple reasons, in the case of the website, The Antimedia ('alternative News'), which is run by an anarchist Nick Bernabe, we can see where there is an ideological and a profit motive for promoting anti-government fake stories and grows its readership by demonizing the Mainstream Media.

Story Link in Washington Post

Here are 10 more conspiracy theories embraced by Donald Trump

1) That President Obama did not attend Columbia University
2) That Trump's taxes were the subject of an audit because he's a Christian
3) There's something "very fishy" about Vince Foster's death
4) That Antonin Scalia may have been a victim of foul play
5) That Ted Cruz's father, Rafael, was linked with JFK's assassin
6) That vaccines are connected to autism
7) That he witnessed thousands of Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New Jersey
8) That he was attacked by the Islamic State
9) That climate change is a hoax
10) That Obama bribed New York's attorney general to investigate Trump University

Content from external source

 

[deirdre]

Story Link in Washington Post

and then the Washington Post publishes more conspiracy theories with no debunks attached, just in case some of us didn't know the IRS might target Christians, that noone at Columbia remembers Obama attending or that Antonin Scalia died with a pillow on his face.

They are what? Like the 3rd largest paper in America?

 

[MikeG]

I thought that the Washington Post did a good job of breaking down “Pizzagate” from its origins to the present day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...t-852pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.92d2d7b48d74

The comment on bots also caught my attention.

An oddly disproportionate share of the tweets about Pizzagate appear to have come from, of all places, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Vietnam, said Jonathan Albright, an assistant professor of media analytics at Elon University in North Carolina. In some cases, the most avid retweeters appeared to be bots, programs designed to amplify certain news and information.

“What bots are doing is really getting this thing trending on Twitter,” Albright said. “These bots are providing the online crowds that are providing legitimacy.”

Online, the more something is retweeted or otherwise shared, the more prominently it appears in social media and on sites that track “trending” news. As the bots joined ordinary Twitter users in pushing out Pizzagate-related rumors, the notion spread like wildfire. Who programmed the bots to focus on that topic remains unknown.

Content from external source

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...t-852pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.92d2d7b48d74

Interesting to see what might make fake news viral.

The topic of bots has appeared in other threads, but might be worth another that is more focused.

https://www.metabunk.org/government-russian-paid-trolls.t6352/#post-155713

 

[Trailblazer]

The topic of bots has appeared in other threads, but might be worth another that is more focused.

It reminds me of the "Columbian Chemicals" hoax from a couple of years ago. https://www.metabunk.org/government-russian-paid-trolls.t6352/page-2#post-156050


If you search that hashtag, it was spread by bots with pop-music themed names, in poor English and often an overt link to Russia in the handle, eg:



It did make me wonder, if they were really Russian troll bots, why include Russia in the handle?

 

[deirdre]

There is hardly a care for politeness or political correctness.

or fact.

Dont get fixated on that one so called "report" and their bias-driven list of sites. Plenty of MSM sources are calling it out. Even the Wp 'printed' an article (s) calling it out as [nothingness].

The Post features an article alleging that independent research reveals that Russia ran a “sophisticated propaganda campaign” to interfere in our elections, weaken Clinton and discredit our democracy. But much of the research cited comes from a group that insists on remaining anonymous and bases its conclusions on murky methodology. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...72c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.fd11a2984e6e

Content from external source

This thread is about actual fake news, not whether a site happens to post an article or two that doesnt completely demonize Russa or doesnt sing the praises of Clinton/Obama.

from Columbia Journalism Review
Washington Post fake news story blurs the definition of fake news

http://www.cjr.org/criticism/washington_post_fake_news_russian_propaganda.php

Content from external source

 

[Greylandra]

or fact.

Dont get fixated on that one so called "report" and their bias-driven list of sites. Plenty of MSM sources are calling it out. Even the Wp 'printed' an article (s) calling it out as [nothingness].

The Post features an article alleging that independent research reveals that Russia ran a “sophisticated propaganda campaign” to interfere in our elections, weaken Clinton and discredit our democracy. But much of the research cited comes from a group that insists on remaining anonymous and bases its conclusions on murky methodology. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...72c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.fd11a2984e6e

Content from external source

This thread is about actual fake news, not whether a site happens to post an article or two that doesnt completely demonize Russa or doesnt sing the praises of Clinton/Obama.

Sorry let me clarify. The thread is regarding how fake news goes viral. Well it's gotta get there somehow. Where do you suspect that picture I've posted might lead someone looking for more context? Wikileaks? The podesta emails? The "Fake news that must not be named"? This is intentional. You can't start people down the rabbit hole of all encompassing skepticism by initially discussing satanic pedophile rings!