seems like you were just looking for some confirmation bias (ironically), b/c this is a grossly misleading headline.
-
-
-
I've added the number "three," but what do you think would be more accurate?
-
not writing a misleading piece, for one.
-
What is misleading? I'm happy to change what you find misleading, if it is in fact, but you would need to lay that out.
-
the impression that 'fake news favored hillary'', when it overwhelmingly favored Trump.
-
But that's not in the story or the headline. You're reading that into the words I wrote.
-
I'm talking about actual stories (now emphasized w/word 3 in headline). Not all the stories in aggregate.
-
Moreover, I'm talking about what *got remembered* and so believed. Most Trump ones did not.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How would you change it?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Is it the number "two" (actually, three) you think should be in there?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Is there evidence fake news is cumulative in the study? Or any study?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Nor is it what my headline says. What the study says (as do others) is few fake news stories are believed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@htmlmencken by no means that Stanford study claims that fake news favoured Hillary. -
It showed most fake news supported Trump. But it ALSO showed that that which supported Hillary was believed more.
@htmlmencken -
shows that there were 0.92 pro-DT and 0.23 pro HRC fk stries, of tht ppl believed 0.71 of proDT & 0.18 of prohrc.
-
yes! In bulk. Which is not what my post discusses. Though thanks for proving you read the abstract.
-
I do peer review of scientific publications, and know how to draw conclusions. That report does not claim fake news helped hrc
-
Nor did I.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.