7 ms·

Fascinating. I'm not sure I buy the left isn't just as gullible as the right. Or at least not without more proof? I suspect you'd need a right leaning person w

Fascinating. I'm not sure I buy the left isn't just as gullible as the right. Or at least not without more proof? I suspect you'd need a right leaning person with a similar background writing left bait fake news to have the same impact though. Write fake news about charter schools doing something bad (charter school puts LGBT students in detention) or fake churches doing bad (church in Idaho found funneling funds to Trump campaign) or fake doctors doing something the left would find atrocious but believable (medical clinic in Utah refuses to help unwed pregnant teens unless they agree to marry) I say that because I know lots of traditionally left leaning people who believe all kinds of unscientific stuff with the same fervor as the "religious right". Auras, Rieki, Astrology, Homeopathy, Chakra, etc...

russdill 10y ago
I think in general yes, absolutely true. Everyone across the political spectrum is just as susceptible. However, in this election, people on the left didn't need to look any further than the candidate's own words to get the rage high they were seeking. For the right though, I mean sure, you have mishandling of emails and a charitable foundation, but even with years investigation and even publicly leaked emails there wasn't a whole lot of fire, just a bunch of smoke.
- briandear 10y ago
  Actually I'd make the argument that given the propensity for major media outlets to be strongly left-biased, there were plenty of real stories to inflame the left. While those same outlets were actually promoting an unproven talking point that Clinton emails were hacked/released by the Russians. Hillary Clinton claimed that to be true, so that became the narrative, even though that news was "fake." There has been, in fact no proof that the Russians did anything -- only that the techniques uses were similar to ones the Russians have used. [1] Yet, we're still hearing stories that the Russians "hacked" the DNC and Clinton. In fact, the media was casting doubt on the authenticity of the leaked documents. MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, dutifully informed viewers that the transcripts "haven't been authenticated." (When referring to a leaked Goldman Sachs speech.) Clinton said in front of the 66 million TV viewers of the second presidential debate, "The Russian government [is] directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election and WikiLeaks is part of that.." The emails were either hacked or they're not real. Nobody has ever complained about their fake emails being hacked. Outlets spent more time talking about how despicable the Russians were yet ignoring, for the most part the content of those emails. For example, one of those emails was Clinton campaign chair talking about "Needy latinos." Not a single word printed in the Times, the Washington Post or any mainstream media outlet. However, Trump says something 20 years ago and it becomes front-page news for literally a week. Given that one of the themes of this election was "racism" -- the characterization of the two people to which Podesta was referring would be considered relevant considering claims of racism were being made against Trump. However, imagine if a "reputable" news organization dug into the Clinton Foundation's apparent irregularities with the gusto with which they covered Trump's purported sexual harassment. For example, The Daily Beast published a story in October called "All of Donald Trump's Accusers: A Timeline of Every Alleged Grope."[2] Now to their credit, they did use the word "alleged," however, if you look at their coverage of the Clinton Foundation, they were almost apologetic. For example, "Hey Hillary, It's Past Time to Shut Down the Clinton Foundation. It does great work. But in political terms, it's an albatross."[3] The writer then goes on to complain about how Judicial Watch is scrutinizing the Foundation. The entire point of that piece and those similar is that the Clinton's should shut down the foundation because it's red meat for right-wing investigation and thus politically unhelpful. Not a single word about the allegation of pay-to-play or any number of ethical issues (such as the Foundation paying for Chelsea's wedding.[4].) Interesting that only Fox and the NYPost reported this, despite this being hugely unethical and probably illegal and germane to the question of Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and ethics as well as interesting to the IRS as well as donors who ostensibly are donating to charity. Jenna Bush drinking underage in Austin during the Bush administration got more coverage on CNN than what approaches embezzlement by Chelsea Clinton.[5] The purpose of this comment is to point out that those on the right who are typically targeted by fake news are so gullible to it because there is a large percentage of stories in the mainstream media that are anti-conservative yet there ARE substantial stories that the media either ignores or glosses over when it comes to the left. Chelsea Clinton potentially embezzling millions of charitable contributions is a huge story that at least warrants investigation. Sanders supporting DNC activist Seth Rich gets murdered, the media calls it a robbery despite nothing being taken, yet no enterprising reporter seems interested in digging any deeper?[6] What that means is that there is a market demand for more information about the stories that are hinted at but aren't fully reported. The left, on the other hand has plenty of well-reported anti-right news to read with mainstream outlets, thus their appetite for information is mostly satisfied. [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-donald-trump-s-accusers-a-timeline-of-every-alleged-grope-and-assault.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-dona... [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary-it-s-past-time-to-shut-down-the-clinton-foundation.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary... [4] http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation-to-help-pay-for-wedding-emails/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation... [5] http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_death_of_seth_rich/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_deat...
  - russdill 10y ago
    Hi, thanks so much for a reasoned and intelligent response. It's very hard sometimes to see the point of view of the other side so I really appreciate the time you spent here. As far as emails go, you can check out politifact for the sources that have been used to say that the Russians were involved: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/... It is a fact that that is the statement for Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as well as many other agencies (17, which you can see listed). I'm noticing here you have left off the beginning of the quote, without putting a […]. The beginning of the quote is "Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the". While Hillary has lied in the debates and has been called out for it, there is no doubt that the above is a truthful statement, that is the position of the US intelligence community. And yes, claiming that oh, maybe they aren't real is a bit disingenuous. Of course some fake stuff could be slipped in, but given the lack of major revelations within the emails, it seems pretty doubtful. On the other side of the coin, your story here is that there was so much dirt in the emails and the foundation, etc, but it wasn't widely reported, so the right resorted to fake news instead? That makes zero sense to me. If there is dirt that the media failed to report, why bother making up fake news? Reading into your links, I can see why people resorted to fake news. Take the Clinton Foundation paying for weddings, living expenses, etc. The WikiLeaks email discusses an investigation of a alleged wrongdoing, not a wrongdoing itself. I'm sure there are Trump campaign emails where they discuss the alleged rape of a 13 year old. Would you think such emails are proof? No, of course not, it makes perfect sense for them to discuss the allegations and (then) pending trial. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the discussion of allegations was 4 years ago. Did something come of the allegation? I haven't seen anything. The reason it wasn't reported is that it's a non-story. You can actually go and read the financial reports of the Clinton Foundation (something you cannot do of the Trump foundation incidentally). The other big issue here is that fake news has not only been enormously popular on the right this election cycle, it has been leveraged by the campaign, including Trump (such as the "Blumenthal" quote) and his children. Donald Jr being particularly susceptible to retweeting fake news. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls-totally-obvious-fake-hillary-email-conspiracy.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls...
pg314 10y ago
It seems to me that during this election the right got tangled up in many more fake news stories than the left. One factor is probably that the majority of newspapers (both left and right leaning) endorsed Hillary. If you wanted news that confirmed your decision to vote for Trump, you turned to alternative "news" media. Those were more likely to run fake news. Another factor is that Trump was actively encouraging his supporters to reject traditional media and was promoting conspiracy theories himself.
ryuker16 10y ago
the bullshit stories on the left tend to be about some evil corporation(monsanto) pushing bad things to you for $$$, environmental, or someone being oppressed. I think since they target a more educated consumer, they go more upscale than sensationalist yellow journalism.
analog31 10y ago
Fascinating. I'm not sure I buy the left isn't just as gullible as the right. Or at least not without more proof? Not proof, but an interesting analogy: The relative success of right- and left-wing talk radio. Right wing talk radio is a huge industry, left-wing is practically nonexistent. Maybe it points to an asymmetry in how left- and right-wingers consume information. Granted, it could also be related to other factors such as having spare time for listening to talk radio, or having a job that doesn't require much concentration.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Surely the left wing equivalent of talk radio is the newspapers?
  - analog31 10y ago
    Well, I suppose if you think that newspapers are the left wing equivalent of anything. I cancelled the Chicago Tribune when they endorsed George Bush, and my neighbor thinks the NY Times is right-wing. ;-) But still, if one assumes that the left gets information from newspapers and the right from talk-radio, it would support my thesis that there are left-right differences in consumption of information, making it plausible that there are also left-right differences in the consumption of fake news. There's en entire industry (advertising) devoted to exploiting measurable differences in how identifiable groups of people process information.
- Slothrop99 10y ago
  I don't think that's correct. My mother is someone who watches left-wing biased news (MSNBC) all day, for example. And while I wouldn't call NPR specifically left-wing, they have a heavy establishment bias, and were running anti-Trump stuff continually through the election. Plus, there is a whole media establishment out there preaching to the far left (Democracy Now, "hippie" radio, etc.)
  - analog31 10y ago
    I'm thinking in terms of the magnitude of commercial success. As a counter-anecdote, I live in a liberal enclave -- Madison Wisconsin -- and there is a successful radio station with continuous right wing talk for several hours running. They have Limbaugh book-ended with other right wing shows, national and local. In contrast, attempts at finding a similar market for liberal talk have failed. One station that made a go of it in my locale just gave up and switched to a music format. And the quality was just never there. While I have no use for Limbaugh, I respect that he delivers a quality product to his audience. In contrast, the liberal shows just seemed half-assed. I'm pretty far to the left, but outrage propaganda turns me off. I also just don't react to the news in a tight feedback loop. I'm open minded, but being open minded means come back in a decade and see if my opinions have changed.
BeetleB 10y ago
I think the left tends not to fall so much for political stories, but put in stuff about evils of big agra, big pharma, fake studies showing alternative medications working well, etc and they'll lap it up.

russdill 10y ago

I think in general yes, absolutely true. Everyone across the political spectrum is just as susceptible. However, in this election, people on the left didn't need to look any further than the candidate's own words to get the rage high they were seeking. For the right though, I mean sure, you have mishandling of emails and a charitable foundation, but even with years investigation and even publicly leaked emails there wasn't a whole lot of fire, just a bunch of smoke.

briandear 10y ago
Actually I'd make the argument that given the propensity for major media outlets to be strongly left-biased, there were plenty of real stories to inflame the left. While those same outlets were actually promoting an unproven talking point that Clinton emails were hacked/released by the Russians. Hillary Clinton claimed that to be true, so that became the narrative, even though that news was "fake." There has been, in fact no proof that the Russians did anything -- only that the techniques uses were similar to ones the Russians have used. [1] Yet, we're still hearing stories that the Russians "hacked" the DNC and Clinton. In fact, the media was casting doubt on the authenticity of the leaked documents. MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, dutifully informed viewers that the transcripts "haven't been authenticated." (When referring to a leaked Goldman Sachs speech.) Clinton said in front of the 66 million TV viewers of the second presidential debate, "The Russian government [is] directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election and WikiLeaks is part of that.." The emails were either hacked or they're not real. Nobody has ever complained about their fake emails being hacked. Outlets spent more time talking about how despicable the Russians were yet ignoring, for the most part the content of those emails. For example, one of those emails was Clinton campaign chair talking about "Needy latinos." Not a single word printed in the Times, the Washington Post or any mainstream media outlet. However, Trump says something 20 years ago and it becomes front-page news for literally a week. Given that one of the themes of this election was "racism" -- the characterization of the two people to which Podesta was referring would be considered relevant considering claims of racism were being made against Trump. However, imagine if a "reputable" news organization dug into the Clinton Foundation's apparent irregularities with the gusto with which they covered Trump's purported sexual harassment. For example, The Daily Beast published a story in October called "All of Donald Trump's Accusers: A Timeline of Every Alleged Grope."[2] Now to their credit, they did use the word "alleged," however, if you look at their coverage of the Clinton Foundation, they were almost apologetic. For example, "Hey Hillary, It's Past Time to Shut Down the Clinton Foundation. It does great work. But in political terms, it's an albatross."[3] The writer then goes on to complain about how Judicial Watch is scrutinizing the Foundation. The entire point of that piece and those similar is that the Clinton's should shut down the foundation because it's red meat for right-wing investigation and thus politically unhelpful. Not a single word about the allegation of pay-to-play or any number of ethical issues (such as the Foundation paying for Chelsea's wedding.[4].) Interesting that only Fox and the NYPost reported this, despite this being hugely unethical and probably illegal and germane to the question of Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and ethics as well as interesting to the IRS as well as donors who ostensibly are donating to charity. Jenna Bush drinking underage in Austin during the Bush administration got more coverage on CNN than what approaches embezzlement by Chelsea Clinton.[5] The purpose of this comment is to point out that those on the right who are typically targeted by fake news are so gullible to it because there is a large percentage of stories in the mainstream media that are anti-conservative yet there ARE substantial stories that the media either ignores or glosses over when it comes to the left. Chelsea Clinton potentially embezzling millions of charitable contributions is a huge story that at least warrants investigation. Sanders supporting DNC activist Seth Rich gets murdered, the media calls it a robbery despite nothing being taken, yet no enterprising reporter seems interested in digging any deeper?[6] What that means is that there is a market demand for more information about the stories that are hinted at but aren't fully reported. The left, on the other hand has plenty of well-reported anti-right news to read with mainstream outlets, thus their appetite for information is mostly satisfied. [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... [2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-donald-trump-s-accusers-a-timeline-of-every-alleged-grope-and-assault.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-dona... [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary-it-s-past-time-to-shut-down-the-clinton-foundation.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/23/hey-hillary... [4] http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation-to-help-pay-for-wedding-emails/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation... [5] http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/04/27/bush.daughter/ [6] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_death_of_seth_rich/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4sejv7/the_deat...
- russdill 10y ago
  Hi, thanks so much for a reasoned and intelligent response. It's very hard sometimes to see the point of view of the other side so I really appreciate the time you spent here. As far as emails go, you can check out politifact for the sources that have been used to say that the Russians were involved: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/... It is a fact that that is the statement for Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as well as many other agencies (17, which you can see listed). I'm noticing here you have left off the beginning of the quote, without putting a […]. The beginning of the quote is "Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the". While Hillary has lied in the debates and has been called out for it, there is no doubt that the above is a truthful statement, that is the position of the US intelligence community. And yes, claiming that oh, maybe they aren't real is a bit disingenuous. Of course some fake stuff could be slipped in, but given the lack of major revelations within the emails, it seems pretty doubtful. On the other side of the coin, your story here is that there was so much dirt in the emails and the foundation, etc, but it wasn't widely reported, so the right resorted to fake news instead? That makes zero sense to me. If there is dirt that the media failed to report, why bother making up fake news? Reading into your links, I can see why people resorted to fake news. Take the Clinton Foundation paying for weddings, living expenses, etc. The WikiLeaks email discusses an investigation of a alleged wrongdoing, not a wrongdoing itself. I'm sure there are Trump campaign emails where they discuss the alleged rape of a 13 year old. Would you think such emails are proof? No, of course not, it makes perfect sense for them to discuss the allegations and (then) pending trial. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the discussion of allegations was 4 years ago. Did something come of the allegation? I haven't seen anything. The reason it wasn't reported is that it's a non-story. You can actually go and read the financial reports of the Clinton Foundation (something you cannot do of the Trump foundation incidentally). The other big issue here is that fake news has not only been enormously popular on the right this election cycle, it has been leveraged by the campaign, including Trump (such as the "Blumenthal" quote) and his children. Donald Jr being particularly susceptible to retweeting fake news. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls-totally-obvious-fake-hillary-email-conspiracy.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/30/donald-trump-jr-falls...

pg314 10y ago

It seems to me that during this election the right got tangled up in many more fake news stories than the left. One factor is probably that the majority of newspapers (both left and right leaning) endorsed Hillary. If you wanted news that confirmed your decision to vote for Trump, you turned to alternative "news" media. Those were more likely to run fake news. Another factor is that Trump was actively encouraging his supporters to reject traditional media and was promoting conspiracy theories himself.

ryuker16 10y ago

the bullshit stories on the left tend to be about some evil corporation(monsanto) pushing bad things to you for $$$, environmental, or someone being oppressed. I think since they target a more educated consumer, they go more upscale than sensationalist yellow journalism.

analog31 10y ago

Fascinating. I'm not sure I buy the left isn't just as gullible as the right. Or at least not without more proof? Not proof, but an interesting analogy: The relative success of right- and left-wing talk radio. Right wing talk radio is a huge industry, left-wing is practically nonexistent. Maybe it points to an asymmetry in how left- and right-wingers consume information. Granted, it could also be related to other factors such as having spare time for listening to talk radio, or having a job that doesn't require much concentration.

zigzigzag 10y ago
Surely the left wing equivalent of talk radio is the newspapers?
- analog31 10y ago
  Well, I suppose if you think that newspapers are the left wing equivalent of anything. I cancelled the Chicago Tribune when they endorsed George Bush, and my neighbor thinks the NY Times is right-wing. ;-) But still, if one assumes that the left gets information from newspapers and the right from talk-radio, it would support my thesis that there are left-right differences in consumption of information, making it plausible that there are also left-right differences in the consumption of fake news. There's en entire industry (advertising) devoted to exploiting measurable differences in how identifiable groups of people process information.
Slothrop99 10y ago
I don't think that's correct. My mother is someone who watches left-wing biased news (MSNBC) all day, for example. And while I wouldn't call NPR specifically left-wing, they have a heavy establishment bias, and were running anti-Trump stuff continually through the election. Plus, there is a whole media establishment out there preaching to the far left (Democracy Now, "hippie" radio, etc.)
- analog31 10y ago
  I'm thinking in terms of the magnitude of commercial success. As a counter-anecdote, I live in a liberal enclave -- Madison Wisconsin -- and there is a successful radio station with continuous right wing talk for several hours running. They have Limbaugh book-ended with other right wing shows, national and local. In contrast, attempts at finding a similar market for liberal talk have failed. One station that made a go of it in my locale just gave up and switched to a music format. And the quality was just never there. While I have no use for Limbaugh, I respect that he delivers a quality product to his audience. In contrast, the liberal shows just seemed half-assed. I'm pretty far to the left, but outrage propaganda turns me off. I also just don't react to the news in a tight feedback loop. I'm open minded, but being open minded means come back in a decade and see if my opinions have changed.

BeetleB 10y ago

I think the left tends not to fall so much for political stories, but put in stuff about evils of big agra, big pharma, fake studies showing alternative medications working well, etc and they'll lap it up.