Where hate speech can’t be outlawed? Then move to a place that doesn’t have real freedom of speech. How sad you’d want that. Let the government tell you what you can say? That will end well.
Then I think you’re living in the wrong country. Even under Obama, IIRC, hate speech wasn’t outlawed, and that was without a President Trump. Maybe you should head to Scandinavia?
To conservatives the best time ever was the past, so all new things are a potential threat, may they be people or inventions or whatever, so it is very easy to knee-jerk believe negative things about everything outside their familiar bubble.
To liberals the best time ever will be the future, so all new things are a potential opportunity, so they are not so readily giving negative labels and are more likely to give a benefit of a doubt.
Based on this I think its obvious why conservatives a more gullible on fake news about the other side as fake news tend to be negative.
( I hope this says what I meant it to say, English is not my first language :o )
Arguably, as Matt Yglesias argues in Vox, Clinton lost because of “real” news. Which was also apparently fake. If you truly believed that the scandals were “fake news”, then there’s no point in worrying about factless viral social media stories. CNN, the NY Times, and the Washington Post published fake news and that fake news is what beat Clinton.
Click here to see Donald Trump’s juvenile sexual assault record.
I’m frankly surprised that I didn’t run into click bait that said exactly this. Heck it might not even have been fake news
Many of the news media stories were incorrect because they chose not to included the entire quote. I believe their cherry picking/bias alters the meaning of the statement. YMMV.
I wouldn’t say that I would more say that news budgets have shrunk dramatically in the last few years so that the media don’t have the manpower to do the sort of reporting that they used to do.
As far as fake news goes, I’m not sure that it is quite the right wing conspiracy that it is being made out to be. I don’t think that the imbalance between the prevenelnce of left and right has to do with an active decision by the right to make use of fake news. As with other media it is mostly controlled by what brings in the dough (or in the case of internet the clicks). What brings in the clicks is easy to understand stories that ping the fear and anger centers of the brain (fight or flight). These are the sort of messages that appeal to conservatives. Also conspiracy theories against those in power or representing the establishment work better. With Obama in the Whitehouse and Clinton a clear member of the establishment it was easy to focus on them as targets.
With this in mind it will be interesting to see how fake news evolves now that Conservatives hold all the power. Over the next 4 years there aren’t going to any obvious targets on the left on which to focus the fear and rage. It may be that it evolves on its own and turns to throw their sights on Trump trying target the fear and rage that his election brings to those on the left. Alternatively it may turn out that even in the current environment the Conservative brain is more amenable to their message, and they will just have to focus on smaller targets. In any case there is little that Dems can due to decide this outcome, other than following the GOP example and embracing (or at least not discounting) fake news stories that go against the current administration.
(post shortened)
Why should the viewers/readers/listeners be punished because the media outlets won’t spend the money to do their job correctly? They give millions to some of their on-air personalities, executives, and stock holders.
Maybe it’s because the viewers/readers/listeners are willing to accept piss poor journalism instead of demanding that the media outlets produce a better, more trust-worthy, product?
…if cherry picking is part of the metrics you use to determine whether or not news is “fake” or not: then all news is fake news. The article you posted that you said was "an excellent example of “news” was fake. It claimed to show “stunning headlines over Trumps win from around the world” but then it showed three headlines from the United States and only one headline from somewhere else in the world. The video showed more tweets than it did headlines.
In reality the news has to cherry pick. They need to exercise editorial discretion. If they don’t do that then they are simply repeating propaganda. When Obama said he was going to speed up the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Fox News ran with the headline “Obama doesn’t thank Petraeus” that headline and the article weren’t fake. And neither was the article you cited in post 41.
Despite Media Freak-Out, Data Shows Fake News Sites Have Tiny Audience
Thus no impact on the election at all. Another storm in a Democrat teacup.
I’m not convinced that the Daily Caller is looking at the right data. The Daily Caller claims that data shows that these websites were inconsequential, but Buzzfeed points out that these stories were shared millions of times, and indeed shared more often than the most popular real news stories. The Daily Caller is a right-wing propaganda site that rejects global warming, and uses space in this column to attack Snopes.
Now, if that didn’t ping your bullshit meter, particularly in conjunction with the poll on the side asking, “Do You Think The Fake News Narrative Is About Solving The Problem Or Censoring News?”, you need to get that thing recalibrated. It’s not like The Daily Caller is exactly a bastion of good journalism.
Meanwhile, given the literally hundreds of thousands of times articles by the Denver Guardian were shared on facebook, I can’t share Daily Caller’s blase attitude. I’m not sure how Alexa puts together its page rankings. I think the most likely explanation here has to do with how the page ranking factors in views coming from places like the facebook mobile app, or how some of these sites just absolutely spiked for just one month and then died off (most often literally). But saying, “these articles had no influence on the election” when they were seen by millions, and outpaced real news in the months leading up to the election? That’s nuts. The Daily Caller should get their shit together.