Yes, it was a shock, but most of all I am mortified that this could happen to me as well when I get to his age.
Given that it happens so commonly around retirement, I think this is a function of not wanting to struggle or achieve anything anymore, and therefore succumbing fully to a convenient view, one which gives you a thing to worry about apart from your age and declining health, something participatory without being difficult. "Never mind my hip! What about those DEMOCRATS!!!"
I’m getting up there in age and I’m worried about this myself. My criteria for retirement is not just that I have enough money to stop working, but that I also have enough to travel or do a hobby and stay mentally engaged with something.
This is perhaps the most ironic thing.
This will likely lead to another push for controlling the internet/media a la net neutrality, because we all know people can't be left to do their own research, use any amount of discernment, or have an alternative viewpoint.
Bring forth the gulags, the people need jobs...
Instead, it benefited the likes of Netflix at the expense of the telecom industry. It also put the internet in a legal classification that would allow more government control of speech, though this had not yet been much of an issue in practice.
None of the above seems to have made much of a difference to end users.
It would be great to have a new sort of net neutrality, focused on end users. A nice thing about the end of the old one is that a new one could replace it, giving people what they mistakenly thought they had.
How unfortunate that this generation's social scientists are interested only in grinding and swinging the axe in one political direction. ;-)
There's a lesson here about social media: if you tolerate people pretending to be Nazis "as a joke", then you will soon become overrun with actual Nazis.
I can only guess that things must have gone downhill when the site was taken over by Hiroyuki Nishimura, who has some pretty right-wing political views. That said, there's also a kind of natural affinity in the humiliated-outsider-mentality that 4chan had that fits with Nazism in a way that I feel has become more and more clear in recent years.
I wonder if your dad is ex-military?
Of course, all of that's older enlisted guys, (think vietnam era NCOs), which are the only ones I know. It would be interesting to find out if ex-military older commissioned guys find the same humor in any of what the country's going through. I'd like to think they wouldn't, but who knows?
A little known comedian named Connor O'Malley had a series of comedy sketches about a fake website called truthhunters.com that I think captures it dangerously well.
I've recently added DW.com to my regular news scan, joining the BBC and the trad USA outlets (AP, Reuters, NPR).
Your father notwithstanding, I think education and awareness have a lot to do with who gets sucked into the fake news vortex and who doesn't. On the other hand, I've seen some of my friends whom I thought would know better post some real dingers at times.
Maybe its like country bumpkins without street smarts, maybe they just havent learned the defenses needed?
https://ledger.humanetech.com - to see the cumulative damage, engagement maximizing social networks/news media are doing.
I would like to see a study using the same subjects but check to see if they can tell what is a Google search result and what is an ad.
I hope this is not the case for your dad and I'm sorry if I scared you, but you could consider having him checked.
Fear seems to come on as people see people their age dying of various diseases, etc. Mortality is staring them in the face.
And though it starts with the fear, everything that panders to fear follows....
I wonder: could an aging population endanger democracy by not being able to distinguish truth from falsehood?
Just poking fun.
It might be worth considering what interventions people make with problem gamblers. I suspect if those interventions would work for people in your situation too.
The part I fear most is that healthy dose of skepticism that most people used to have is being turned against those people. If you're not with us, you're against us. Nope, that's a false dichotomy. My father doesn't know what a false dichotomy is. That wasn't something he was taught in grade school or business school. That is something I was taught.
I think the best thing we can do is not argue with the older generation about the subject matter itself, but simply arm them with the tools to find flawed arguments in the subject matter. If you're reading this, and you're not familiar with the concept of logical fallacies, that's a good place to start because fake news is almost always built on logical fallacies that are easy to disassemble once you can spot them:
Once everyone has the tools to debate effectively, then we can have civilized discussions about the actual subject matter itself.
That is my fear as well. "Believe nothing," would be the wrong takeaway from all this, but I'm afraid a cynical population of our youth might very well be following that course.
Be skeptical of skepticism too I tell my daughters.
Unfortunately, that led to cynicism, "analysis paralysis" and other forms of intellectual and (for lack of a better word) spiritual exhaustion.
It's hard to believe in anything that, when you really break it down and analyze it is wrong in so many ways. And that applies to virtually everything, in all honesty. There are no perfect answers.
It's important, though, to believe in something. You're right that we are seeing that cynicism turned from apathy to destruction and hate.
I think a great case study in how to ask questions while still believing in building something positive is the show, The Good Place. The specific episode, "Jeremy Bearimy" deals with how you pick up the pieces from realizing that nothing matters, everything is a mess and humanity is deeply flawed.
"Our research suggests that the cognitive process supported by the vmPFC may play a role in older adults’ susceptibility to scams."
I had an epiphany in mid-November 2018. I realized that, despite watching and reading the news on a pretty much daily basis, none of my voting decisions were changing as a result. I examined voting decisions I'd made going back to 2016 and realized none of them were materially changed by watching the news with such regularity and granularity. This isn't to say that I'm set in my ways and never change my viewpoint. Rather, I think it's more a reflection on the fact that political candidates don't tend to change much over short periods of time, so after a certain point watching or reading the news will simply reaffirm what you already know about them rather than introduce fundamentally new information. A politician who had viewpoint X or trait Y yesterday probably still has viewpoint X today or trait Y today; that may not be true in 5 years, but I don't need to be plugged in every single day.
I realized I only really need to "check in" periodically and see if the voting landscape has truly changed. When "checking in," I've found I have far less allegiance to a particular source and am more open to checking several and comparing. When you don't follow a particular source almost religiously and only peek in once a week or once every two weeks, the "circus" nature of the media starts becoming alarmingly apparent. The disparity between the calm of real life and the 24/7 chaos and tragedy of the news becomes impossible to ignore. My voting patterns have not changed as a result of my disengagement, but my anxiety/outrage/uneasiness have all went down significantly. I now view my previous habit of watching the media every day as a downright unhealthy addiction.
Why would a voting decision change based on what you see on the news? Your senator or representative has little to do with the guy who killed his kids and wife last night.
WATCHING news will only get you the extreme stuff. That's how they keep eyeballs. For instance, we know a lot more about Kashoggi than we know about the prime minister that MBS kidnapped. That's because, as horrible as this may sound, the Kashoggi story had more "sizzle" for lack of a better term. This even though the prime minister being kidnapped actually did more to upset the global order.
I'm not exactly sure what @Brakenshire meant, but I suspect they are saying to ignore the 24 hour news channels and stick to the news formats that aren't trying to break news as it happens. For example, Axios has been consistently good. NYT, Washington Post, etc long form stories that are published when the research is done, not when a deadline is up.
Either way, avoid the opinion section and at least stick to news that fact checks against two reliable sources. For example, that would eliminate most programs on Fox News, nearly all of Breitbart, etc.
What you see on blogs is no more reliable than what you see on FOX, which itself is no more reliable than what you see on youtube. It's pretty much all rubbish a lot of the time.
So yeah, you stay away from mainstream media, then you'll likely be consuming "shocking", and just as fake, media from some other source instead. That's just the preponderance of what's out there unfortunately. No avoiding it really.
Thinking about it game theoretically, it's probably smarter just to accept that there is fake media out there, and go ahead and consume media from whatever your favored sources are with that caveat in mind.
ie - It's fine to watch mainstream media. Certainly FOX, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC etc are all no worse than reading or watching anything else. Certainly no worse than anything you see on youtube. But you should "buy" stories like you'd "buy" anything else...
Depends on the quality of the sources. It's been my experience that, "evidence", and "sources" that blogs and mainstream media cite is oftentimes completely ridiculous. Mainstream media will cite a blog, or a blog will cite a youtube video. "Studies" are cited that are not peer reviewed. Even the "peer reviewed" studies are riddled with errors. Don't even get me started on things like the late unpleasantness involving the Intelligencer, barely science at all, and the NYJM, critical to the cite record.
Nowadays we just have to face the fact that there's a lot of garbage out there. It's just the world we live in now. So consume it, but be aware of what it is you're getting. Most of it is in no way reliable information.
Having a source only makes a story about 1% more credible, but having a dubious/non existent/fake one is a good indication the story shouldn't be trusted.
Short form journalism I ignore, or seek the primary source (like a president’s speech or similar).
I like the distinction you put here, as I've found most "long form" journalism to be focused on superficial details and to try to emphasize innuendo and rumor into emotional plays rather than focusing on facts. As soon as I hit a physical description of one of the people involved that covers more than a sentence (when the article isn't covering a topic involving a physical description), I know the author isn't focused on the parts I care about.
Which is a shame, as there is plenty of investigative journalism that benefits from deeper coverage. Just a lot fewer people doing it. (likely as a consequence of fewer people caring enough to make it financially viable, to properly place blame, but from my end I want the material, not to place blame)
Magazines == Get the big picture on a broad range of topics.
Books == Get the full picture on specific topics.
Looking at things this way I have come to realize that most news I used to read doesn't add any empirical value to me. Sure I can show off I know this and that and that happened and how stupid is that and laugh at it. But that's about it. News (cable news) is literally entertainment IMHO.
No. You'll get a well informed point of view but it's still just a single persons point of view.
That was not only hard work, but given that most financial media tends to avoid biting the hand that feeds it, uncommonly gutsy. One of the best examples of investigative journalism I'm aware of.
Sarcasm aside, I do agree that journals and other longer period periodicals are more reliable.
The Internet was such a monumental shift in how society and civilization as a whole functions, and in such a small amount of time, that unless you grew up with it, it should be expected that whole swaths of demographics have no idea how to successfully navigate it (especially when there's next to zero centralized resources on its many pitfalls).
I know he didn't have that kind of personality before. It's quite shocking.
And yes. I'm worrying to become like him one day.
Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
If someone’s hobby is pretending to be an asshole or stupid... they might actually just be an asshole or stupid.
That’s twice this thread I’ve seen this Vonnegut quote as a thought-terminating cliche, which is two times too many. If you want to have a deeper discussion on the effects of irony on a community, by all means let’s do so. What we should not do is reduce the entire thing down to a pithy mess of fake profundity based on the fame of its speaker, that would be shouted down as the unsubstantiated conclusion it is, if any one of us said it.
I think some people are just wired to think that way and, as we get older, some people switch to thinking that way. As I get older, I get more concerned that whether or not I mentally decline in one way or the other is just random chance and genetics.
The study refutes that statement. I'm not saying we're invincible, I'm just saying we're less susceptible.
Anyways, afa mental decline with age goes, some of it is random, some of it is genetics, some of it is lifestyle that is 100% in your control.
The more you read about the world, the better things stick in your head, the more connections you make, and the more you know. If you leave the critical thinking to some internet celebrity with no incentive to be credible, you end up being coddled from a lot of the news and get basic facts wrong.
I find this incredibly uncomfortable that the OP and you are attributing the spreading of fake news to ageism. No, I don't believe so. Since your evidence is an anecdote, I have many many more anecdotes to disapprove that assessment.
While the GP's thoughts may be anecdotal, the study is not. Whether or not that makes you "uncomfortable" is irrelevant. Have you found issues with the study in question?
'Bill Gates will give a nickel every time this is read' (remember email chains?), 'naked women get shared, but this heroic child won't get a single like', 'Like and Share if you stand with politician X', etc etc.
Combine this with the targeted scamming of elderly from various Nigerian princes and jailed grandchildren, and there does seem to be a much greater degree of credulity with our current elderly generation. I think a more interesting study would be to figure out whether it's generational, a function of changing brain physiology as we age, or what.
I'll also throw in to the mix - creating news 'back then' required someone to gather it, someone to write it up, a printing press or studio, distribution, whatever - people and effort and time and money.
I don't think a lot of the older people I've spoken to realise quite how easy it is to put something on the Internet. Therefore anything that appears, and has the feel of something 'official' must have come from a credible place with the same time and effort involved. If that makes sense?
Many of these folks don’t even really understand how the Windows UI motif works, they’ve just memorized enough procedures to get stuff done on it.
I also suspect that many of those artfully worded and subtly manipulative email forwards of the late 90s and 2000s May have been Russian psyops experimenting with viral information. They were always just a little too clever and effective while trying to look colloquial and organic, and I always suspected it was some PR outfit somewhere cranking them out, but could never divine a reason for the non-political ones. But maybe it was psyops testing and learning techniques in a long game just coming to light now.
How can you possibly post comment on the elderly not having highly attuned bs detectors and then close with that paragraph? What irony!
We know they have industrial scale operations to post propaganda now.  Obviously this had to start somewhere. I'm pretty sure many intelligence agencies have been researching how information spread on the internet ever since it was created.
The line between honest journalism, state propaganda, and fake news has always been a very porous one.
In fact there are different propaganda modalities for different demographics. Rather like advertising - if you think a message is transparent, clumsy, and ridiculous, that doesn't mean you're clever enough to be immune to manipulation, it means you're not the target audience for it.
Are you saying you think all those email forwards during that time period were all organic and none were the result of PR/propaganda/psyops operations?
I'm honestly not sure which is the null hypothesis here, and thus who owns the burden of proof.
I always had every problem accurately solved with b from people that were lawyers and doctors or were rising up the ranks in those fields
This explains SO much of not just 4chan sub-groups, but a lot of internet groups, and I honestly don't think older generations can't think like this. Ironic humor doesn't occur to them; they take it all at face value. Unfortunately ideas spread on 4chan and elsewhere stop becoming memes and start becoming someones reality.
There's no better example of this than Facebook. A graveyard of dead, crappy, overused memes, and younger generations are not using Facebook anymore, it's older generations now.
Let me tell you that grandma' with email is a relatively new phenomena.
That's not literally forever, but, considering that it's longer than one or two HNers have been alive, it's at least figuratively forever.
I have similar experiences with older loved ones I'm friend with on Facebook and it's rare they send links. But I think the rampant meme-sharing of misinformation/disinformation is much more prevalent.
I read HN, Reddit and sometimes /., and I guess due to my settings I miss a lot of stuff. I'm not on FB, IG or snap, is that why I'm missing these memes?
Some of this stuff is just political garbage in meme style. Basically a pic with block letters.
For the conservative, those op-ed memes can tend to be interpreted as the oft-quoted "fake news", which is where I'm guessing the "both sides" sentiment comes from.
Again, that's just entirely my anecdotal experience.
(I can't find the original papers)
No, they grew up in a time when media distortion was less likely to be revealed because the major media was narrower and it's ideological biases more consistent, and voices outside the major media had major barriers to reaching any substantial audience.
People and media will always have a viewpoint that distorts their objectivity. That is just fact of live and not necessarily bad thing as long as it's honest belief.
Media used to be more reliable and truthful in the past with the normal distortions that people had. Mainstream media is still like this. Their problem is the lack of money and time that lowers their ability to do original reporting and check facts. They are the victims of dishonest influencing, not the originators. Fox News is the only major mainstream media source that has completely turned news into dishonest influencing operation.
Today the distortions are the same but there is significant increase in intentional influencing with data and arguments that those who propagate them don't believe. Using the same talking point to argue for and against issues is good example of this.
Shady figures like Christopher Blair just sit in their homes and push out (non-mainstream viewpoints) disinformation they know is false.
In addition, a huge difference between traditional media, and modern "fake news" is accountability.
As biased as they can be, traditional articles always come with an author name, and published or run under the responsibility of the media themselves.
They can, and often do, give a specific story a slant which supports their point of view or agenda, but they really cannot outright lie, since they would be called out or even be subject to legal action:
"Fake News" have no traceable source, no attributable author, no accountability.
It's also pretty prevalent on the radio, and has a fair few historical precedents from before journalism saw credibility as an important thing to keep in mind (yellow journalism et all).
The Mail's website is also the most visited English language news site in the world.
Depressing? Certainly. Puts a damper on the idea that most people got their news from realiable sources before the internet? Yep.
Seriously? Pretty much all major networks have been caught making stuff up. CNN has been caught giving debate questions ahead of time to their pet candidate.
>"On October 14th, CNN accepted Donna Brazile's resignation as a CNN contributor. (Her deal had previously been suspended in July when she became the interim head of the DNC.) CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate. We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
When mainstream media catches individual journos making stuff up they get fired as it should be. Brazile was not even a journalist or employee. She was running the campaign.
With Brazile, yes, they "accepted her resignation" - not even fired. With other journos, they only fired them after they were caught making stuff up by outsiders. With yet another group, talking heads at CNN make stuff up on a regular basis, but yet they are there because they are "opinion" talking heads. Not just CNN - same with all the other news orgs.
Given Donna Brazile's past and her obvious partisanship, she should have never been allowed to work at CNN to begin with. If they want to be perceived as neutral and fair, that is. That's like hiring Eric Trump to do commentary, while his dad is running for office.
To me, it's ideas like this that perpetuate the problem. It clings to the idea that journalists and journalism - at least that which is sold via mainstream media channels - are capable of some kind of pristine objectivity. They aren't. It is much healthier in my opinion to understand that news is not special within its medium. It's entertainment like everything on every other channel. It's somewhat less fictional obviously, but the entertainment motive is what lies behind it.
I would suggest instead that Fox News was the first major mainstream media source that dropped the pretensions and openly did what "news" has been doing since Walter Kronkite but with an equal and opposite bias. And to that extent, it has had a beneficial effect on society: we now know to watch carefully what a given journalist decides to report on and what they don't and we work harder to extract facts, if there are any, from the pre-determined narratives they are wrapped in. Whether purposely or not, they made news look like a joke. And we are smarter now because of it.
they double down.
> are capable of some kind of pristine objectivity.
My point was that media bias is not same as not being untruthful. Fox News stands alone in the mainstream media in their network level intentionally false reporting.
That's is absolutely untrue. The reason you think that is because your pre-existing bias disagrees with them.
CNN, HuffingtonPost, Washington Post, etc, etc, etc do the exact same thing, from the other side.
Here's a helpful list: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/
Which sites that you read are on there?
I've made a conscious decision to disbelieve any news unless it came from a site on this list: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/
I only news sources not on that list for entertainment.
The distinction was subject of my comment.
Back farther in the past, the many competing newspapers were very partisan. Perhaps we're just back to that situation.
Are you sure? How can you tell?
I guess today's CNN and their much more pronounced left-wing orientation is just a response to the right-leaning stuff from Fox? Or it just seems more left-wing now in comparison.
That, and even if journalists are actively attempting to avoid bias the faster news cycle simply leaves them less time for polish. Thus, more and more stories are the equivalent of first or second drafts.
As the OP said, a decade ago you could make that claim. They were much more "news". Now their rating have been in the toilet for years, so they've gone to extremes to gain viewership.
You are right, though -- it took a lot of work to get content to a large audience. That reduced the number of malicious agents who could and the speed with which they could successfully gain broad influence.
While I agree that journalism is in crisis, this isn't the first time. While Hearst was famous for yellow journalism, his papers weren't the only ones, and often the emotional sensationalism was intended to support a particular candidate (or denounce their opponent).
That being said, mainstream media do tend to care about their reputation, same reason the best liars tend to be careful about what/when to lie.
Many of the elderly become more gullible as they reach advanced age, which is the same reason con-men target them with scams.
I grew up with the Internet. I was reading wacky conspiracy theories in my teens. It made me more skeptical of virtually anything I see in print since I learned how easy it is to create a BS narrative and fit details into it. I also learned what propaganda is, how it works, and how prevalent it is.
Older generations grew up with a one-way opaque screen preaching to them. Obviously not everything on that screen was true, but when it was called "news" it was held to some standard and so was probably more likely to be true than not. They also had no way of delving deeper, no way of querying or seeking out an alternative opinion or discussing it with other members of the audience.
That generation grew up trusting things on screens.
Not sure I’ve noticed a pattern, age or otherwise, with such attitudes.
Now, the same points generally hold with radio, as well.
I was just saying that propaganda is not new. Of course, I don't know that this research is claiming these folks are the most misinformed. So, I could be taking it in a pointless direction, as well.
They could and did seek alternative opinions, though often it cost more. Subscribing to newsletters has long been an option. For example, the John Birch Society's TheNewAmerican was created in 1985 as the merger of two older newsletters that date to 1956 and 1965. It's now available at https://www.thenewamerican.com/ but you can still get the print version delivered to your house twice a month.
That some folks from older generations did this, I can accept. But you will need more data than this to counter the facts presented in the article, no?
A better way to interpret those facts: older people lean conservative.
The research showed that political outlook was a far better way to predict sharing these web sites than age or even party affiliation.
They know a domain that's been around vs. one like justice-freedom-eagle.usa that looks like a default wordpress template with stock clip art.
They may get their news from aggregators and live in their respective bubbles, but they're more likely to see through a shady looking site with headlines like "Pope endorses Trump" or "Hillary leads Trump away in handcuffs." As much as the respective sides want to believe those things.
Is that really true though? A lot of the younger folks on my Facebook share stuff from things like "natural-truth-health.net" or "gmo-truth-toxic.tk" or "naturalnews.com".
Without validating that the definition does not preclude the conclusion I don’t see how we can trust it’s conclusikn.
>Posts containing links to external websites are cross-referenced against lists of fake news publishers built by journalists and academics. Here, we mainly use measures constructed by reference to the list by Silverman (7), but in the Supplementary Materials, we show that the main results hold when alternate lists are used, such as that used by peer-reviewed studies (2).
It's domain level, not article. You can follow the links in the paper to see how those groups come up with these lists.
These are the classification sources according to soundwave106:
A) The primary source was a list of fake news sites compiled by Buzzfeed Media 
B) The study was cross-checked with a list of sites from a peer reviewed paper (H. Allcott, M. Gentzkow, Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017)) and according to the paper was similar to buzzfeed suggesting an ideological tilt.
There is some additional methodology in the study link.
There are four questions that need to be answered:
1) are the classifications complete over the data set in the study, not an arbitrary different data set
2) is the populations studied representative of the populuation in general
3) are the classifications unbiased
4) are the classification structure sufficiently granular to represent uncertainty
On #2 the population was chosen by voluntary particiation and I don't see any mention of them doing necessary statistical analysis to make sure it is representative of the general population.
On #3 and #4 buzzfeed said they collected the classifications by searching for fake news of interest to people of their ideological tilt. Some of which is admittedly not fake news, such as hillarys mishandling of government emails:
-- BuzzFeed News used the content analysis tool BuzzSumo, which enables users to search for content by keyword, URL, time range, and social share counts. BuzzFeed News searched in BuzzSumo using keywords such as "Hillary Clinton" and "Donald Trump," as well as combinations such as "Trump and election" or "Clinton and emails" to see the top stories about these topics according to Facebook engagement. We also searched for known viral lies such as "Soros and voting machine."
-- Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump, which the site removed after publication of this article. The only viral false stories during the final three months that were arguably against Trump's interests were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American "refugees" fleeing Trump, and a hoax claiming RuPaul said he was groped by Trump.
I am sure many other problems could be found if I looked more, but just one of these would put a nail in the coffin of their conclusion and together they just put it on dubious grounds.
The definition of "fake news" is a list of 21 conservative web sites chosen by BuzzFeed. For some reason, BuzzFeed wasn't in that list.
Unsurprisingly, by that definition, fake news is primarily spread by conservatives! Chart C shows that as the strongest result by far. Chart B, going by age, is a weaker result. Well yes, it seems that conservatives live longer (living less dangerously?) or that people turn conservative as they age. It is well-known that older people lean conservative.
This study is, itself, impressively fake, just like BuzzFeed.
It doesnt pay well enough, so they also have the clickbait stuff
It's not even plausible. The man is a germophobe. He had to overcome a handshake aversion (Where has your hand been today? Eeeew...) to even run for office.
It was trivial for the people in power to brief presidents or start a government investigation, with or without merit, and this leads the court to determine public interest. It's getting to be circular logic here, with merit coming from merit.
The pee tape may or may not be real, almost any intelligence dossier like that is going to contain information across multiple sources some of which may not be correct. This does not invalidate the document as a whole, especially because again, we've seen many claims within it bear fruit over the past few years.
This leads me to the conclusion that you are either
1) uninterested in the facts
2) making your arguments in bad faith
or 3) all of the above
In any case, arguing with you will not bring further truth out. Enjoy your day
The fact that the dossier is notable (in the public interest to publish) does not mean that the dossier is correct. The court only ruled that the dossier was notable. The fact that presidents were briefed means that the dossier is notable, not that it is correct. The bit about people telling lies... well that is an ad hominem that also doesn't help to satisfy the burden of proof, plus if that were a valid argument then it could be applied to the source of the dossier.
Mind sending a few links my way?
As a robustness check, we constructed alternate measures using a list curated by Allcott and Gentzkow (2), who combined multiple sources across the political spectrum (including some used by Silverman) to generate a list of fake news stories specifically debunked by fact-checking organizations.
We took this list and removed all domains classified as “hard news” via the supervised learning technique used by Bakshy et al. (23) to focus specifically on fake news domains rather than the more contested category of “hyperpartisan” sites (such as Breitbart).
> that conservatives live longer (living less dangerously?)
or have more money to spend on healthier living (high quality food, high quality entertainment, high quality housing, plus medicine, etc)
My Mother and Her Scammer
Fake news first and formost is a clickbait scam to get advertising dollars, NOT a political propaganda approach and this tendency to keep using it as if it's an actual political issue is really absurd and itself an example of what is probably more an example of sloppy news.
Furthermore the insinuation that the older generation somehow is more naive than the young generation in political views only adds to the superficial and naval gazing claims.
That's a pretty bold assertion. Let me make sure I'm getting this right. According to you, there is not a problem of people creating and spreading lies in order to forward their political agendas?
That sounds like an absurd proposition from you. We can see it almost every single day, especially on platforms like facebook.
There is nothing what so ever that makes "fake news" worse than your or mine self-delusional idea of what is true ESPECIALLY in politics which has nothing to do with truth but perspective.
The actual problems with social media platforms like FB and Instagram etc are depression not one group of people living in an echo chamber more than others.
Yes "fake news" can spread faster but so can rebuttals and "real news".
My own pet hypothesis for the larger phenomenon discussed here is this: Younger generations had schooling that attempted to make them "college ready" and part of that college readiness was understanding how to find and cite credible sources, alongside understanding what a "primary source" is. Sure, it didn't stick with everyone, but I do think bits-and-pieces of that are imprinted on Millennials.
Along with that you have many younger people doing white collar "knowledge work" which often involves compiling and synthesizing information from multiple sources and drawing a conclusion. This understanding of "how the sausage is made" carries into media literacy when say, examining an editorial for factual accuracy.
But if you’re talking about the original article: if older Americans are more likely to spread fake news, and older Americans are more likely to be conservative, it stands to reason that most of the fake news being spread would skew conservative. It’s a function of the audience’s age as opposed to their politics.
I’m sure if you zero’d in on fake news spread by people under 40 it would skew left.
It took me a long discussion to convince my Indian uncle that image of certificate (signed by director general of UNESCO) that he forwarded on WhatsApp, declaring Indian national anthem as the best national anthem in the world, can be created in 10 minutes by anyone these days.
World War 1, World War 2, Cuba, Mexico, the civil war, the Boston masacre, the boston tea party are just a few things we can point some fake and incomplete news to in America.
Romney: technically, Mormons are protestant
Biden: he isn't a believable Catholic unless he opposes abortion
Obama: he actually slipped up and said "my Muslim faith" in an interview
I believe that many older people find critical thinking to be taboo, and prefer to take things at face value because they confuse passivity with wisdom. Why question something when someone will come along any minute to make you feel comfortable anyway?
They tend to be wrong when they think independently because they were never any good at critical thinking to begin with, so they just parrot what they were told makes sense. What's going to keep their lives "the same."
This article does a better job than I ever could explaining my reasoning... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616721243921...
Ludicrous. Smart and educated people fall for scams and join cults.
> many older people find critical thinking to be taboo
> They tend to be wrong when they think independently
You realize everything in our world was built by the generations before us, right? Shoulders of giants and all that?
Now she's widowed. As my father declined with Alzheimer's he tuned into FOX news all day long. Oddly, he became less racist despite this because my wife is black. The more he fell in love with her as his daughter, the better person he became.
My mom still watches FOX news all day long. I know this because my son is living with her right now to help her out and he tells me outrageous stuff she does with her ideas and money. She's a devout Republican now. She hated the Obamas but could never tell me why. She loves Trump, but again she can't tell me why other than she "Likes the way he talks."
Any evidence of truth given to her elicits an "OK" and then she walks away. I have no idea how she went from "always look up the answer for yourself" to believing anything that fits her current worldview as shaped by the television she watches.
Lies are sticky. If you passively listen to lies all day, it will affect even you.
Take an excerpt from this article:
Suppose you hear of a family of four who died after eating at Golden Gate Chinese Restaurant. The authorities investigate, and release the information that food poisoning was not the cause. Do you go out for Chinese tonight?
The documentarian on the other hand appears to have never listened to Rush Limbaugh before setting out to do this documentary since she knows so little that's non-controversial about the man. Such as his quirk of saying ditto. She seems ro have just decided who he was by osmosis by reading left wing news articles about him. Rather than try to genuinely understand the appeal of right wing radio she just dismisses it as naziesque brainwashing. The way she belittles her father while not appreciating the narrow range of political thought she has exposed herself to is just so incredibly smug and oblivious.
This documentary in a nutshell is what is wrong with political discourse.
The one thing about the "fake news" hysteria is that one side consuming the fake news is accusing the other side consuming the fake news.
As far as I can tell, it's all fake news and propaganda.
People have been talking about the issues with the "mainstream media" (in particular, whether their profit motives line up with their ethical duty) for a few decades, and it all it takes is one clown to suddenly restore faith in the media?
I have seen people talk about Bush like he was an okay president. It feels like many have forgotten about the responsibility of the media in promulgating the Iraq war narrative. People don't really seem to get the media actually continues to profit from its interaction with Donald Trump (those sweet, juicy views!), and continues to pass on useless information to the public, rather than actionable information which might stir the public into something other than apathy.
...something is so weird, and I am struggling to put my finger on it...
Says who? A voluntarily-retracted study is not "fake news" anyway. People are allowed to make mistakes.