I think fake news as share of news would be a better measure of its perniciousness than fake news as a share of all media.
-
-
-
It says" fake news itself is only 1% of overall news consumption."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow. That's the worst methodology I've ever seen in a study. I can go into detail if anyone wants to discuss. How could anybody think this methodology would generate accurate data? Only explanation I can think of is conflict of interest / confirmation bias.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I tuned out when the GW Bush administration, Karl Rove in particular, was able to get Dan Rather fired over his reporting of documents about W's draft-dodging that Rove had faked. I figured if the network wouldn't defend someone of Rather's stature, reals news was done.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It doesn't say what the researchers have classed as "fake news". The definition can depend on who you talk to. I've met several Trump supporters who class any negative MSM news about Trump as "fake" news. I've also seen conspiracy theorists class any pro-vaccine news as fake news
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.