4 ms·

the actual article: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-checking-fact-checkers-a-data-driven-approach/ https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/arti

the actual article: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-checking-fact-checkers-a-data-driven-approach/ https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-checking-... Note that Linebarger, in his "Psychological Warfare" textbook, points out that for propaganda purposes it is not so much truth and falsity, but the selection of truths and the spin put upon them that matters. (or is he just old-fashioned, having written that mid-20th century?) (speaking of agreement: fwiw, I learned how to do crowd estimation from a textbook, and have found that reported "police estimates" are generally very close to my own, based on ∑density*area)

junofan 3y ago
I don’t really see how their findings address their first research question. Some data on publication bias would’ve been stronger. Relatedly, wonder how you get published in the Harvard Misinformation Review. Side note: it’s wild to me how effective Soviet-style propaganda-as-education still is. For ex. I received a stack of ballots in my mailbox that I didn’t ask for. I don’t need ten thousand Snopes articles that never answer legitimate questions somebody might have from that.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  > I received a stack of ballots I suggest following the tree in the "Source" part of Linebarger's STASM analysis framework (source is the first S) if you ever wish to go deeper than just "cui bono?" (on a related topic, push polls were already in use by the Creel Committee at the dawn of C20)