The first study is not perfect but it has not been debunked in any sense. You want to disbelieve it so you do. The truth is there is no way to know how many people voted illegally.
How else does one interpret a demand to hand recount votes other than an attempt to delegitimize the election and imply that hacked voting machines swung the election.
An admission from a Supreme Court Justice that abortion is a tool to reduce populations we don’t want can be interpreted as an endorsement of eugenics.
Matthews reported not only that Castro was alive which was true, but that he had a large following which was not. He was fooled by Castro marching the same group of people passed him a couple of times. Though he seemed to want to be fooled by Castro.
This sudden obsession with fake news is just a way for liberals to not admit to themselves that their ideas are not as popular as they thought and that is why they lost the election.
Yes, I pointed at the very inconvenient fact that what they expected in the midterm elections failed to happen.
Not as much as you think, and there weer more studies to show it. I was not kidding that this was discussed elsewhere and the study you pointed out remains the odd one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19594619&postcount=10236
Uh, if evidence is found of impropriety, you bet that needs to be told.
Again, even the article admitted that they were not sure if that was the case. Hence the FOX like question mark in the title.
I have to agree that when one sees a question mark in an article it is because even the writers suspect that the answer is usually **no **to their innuendo.
And the last bit is just speculation. There are reports that a lot of the right was also trolled by Castro regarding if he did fool the NYT
One should notice that in this attempt at killing the messenger it is missed that if the Times was making a fake bit of news that then we should had seen Chiapas go in flames. No, the historical truth is that Batista should had squashed Castro like a bug but the big picture includes the realization that a lot of people did hate Batista and ended supporting Castro.
A forest does not burn but for its own trees.
Again, the fact that Clinton won the **popular **vote is conveniently forgotten in the right wing blogosphere.
You need to check also the video linked early about media sources, I noticed how your last bit about Castro did not had a link, as Peter Hadfied recommended, one had to look for the keywords or paste the quote in a search to realize the “Chinese whispers” method that fake news are using is happening there in all its glory and you are falling for it.
Many right wing sources are just copy pasting the meme that [del]Pravda[/del] Breitbart news originated by trying to use a bit of reporting from the past that corrected fake news from the Batista regime into a red herring to distract from the avalanche of misinformation many will consume in the Trump years.
A free press is a great thing, BUT
“but” earns one being called a BUTT HEAD by Salman Rushdie
I guess I get too much of it from the New York Times. Time for me to switch to reliable news sources like Breitbart and chain emails from my crazy uncle! 
Thanks to GIGO, as always, for digging up well cited facts.
The truth is there is no way to know that you are not a shape-shifting reptilian alien from Arcturus IV. However, it would be wrong for someone in a responsible position, such as a president-elect, to publicly proclaim it as a fact. It would be even more wrong for such an individual to do it constantly, on all manner of subjects, as a matter of routine.
I’m surprised how easily some of you want a national organization monitoring news and deciding what’s fake and liberalizing libel/slander laws.
Many were repeatedly dismayed by Trump’s obsession with suing journalists and now you want to make it easier?
Can’t you see the gargantuan can of elephant-eating mutant worms you’re opening?
You want that power now with Trump in power? You want a Trump appointee determining what fake news is?
I’m surprised (well, not really) that you didn’t actually read what’s been posted, where many such as myself suggest that what’s really needed is a revitalization of trusted media and a greater appreciation by the general public of what constitutes junk and fake news.
What I’m totally unsurprised by is that those who benefit from the consequences of fake news are quite happy with its ever-growing influence.
That is an incredibly poor way of trying to prove the point that “things weren’t any better back in the past”, with respect to media or anything else. Some things were in fact far worse in the past, notably the prevalence of racism and other kinds of bigotry. And the US was not alone in this regard; Canada also interned Japanese, and most other countries involved in the war did equivalent things or worse. It was partly the nature of war and partly the nature of the times.
Yet one thing is abundantly clear: in 1942 there weren’t dime-a-dozen Internet sites, Facebook postings, and chain emails all hell-bent on spreading lies. The news came from newspapers and radio and the emerging medium of television, and as imperfect as they were, and as inclined as they always are to “adopt the basic framework of state and private power”, to quote Noam Chomsky, a vibrant and trustworthy free press was the dominant news source to an extent that is no longer true, primarily because of the technology enabling fake news.
Let’s get back to the New York Times again. In a September, 1939 editorial, the New York Times cited the numerous contradictory reports being issued by the competing wartime factions, saying that “These contradictions of fact are the daily by-product of a war being fought at the moment more fiercely with diplomatic bombshells and propaganda raids than with military weapons.” Then they went on to say the following:
Less and less, however, do conflicting reports or confusing intrigues becloud the judgment of the American public. Opinion in this country has become pretty expert in sifting evidence and appraising the credibility of the statements of governments that live by lying and chicanery. Seldom in our history has America shown itself so aware, so skeptical, so consciously responsible as during the present crises, and the chief reason for this sobriety and vigilance is that our information, though often contradictory, is more complete and reliable than that of any other people.
Sadly, no such statement could be made today.
So if a news organization deliberately withholds reports on one candidate or uses technology to alter searches on the internet what is your fix for this? They didn’t lie, they just didn’t speak the truth.
I am also skeptical of how much Matthews was fooled by Castro’ marching the same people by him. He certainly acted like he was fooled and reported that Castro had much more support than he actually had. His reporting on how Castro loved America and was anti-communist greatly influenced American policy and led to a cutoff of weapons to the Batista regime. That is well known and virtually without challengeamong historians.
And it is still a kill the messenger argument, remember, your point was that the report was fake news, the truth was more complicated than the caricature Breitbart “news” made it to be.
No, my point was that it is not always easy to distinguish fake news and real news. Matthews published falsehoods that affected policy in the New York Times. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards love child story. This does not mean that the NY Times is fake news and the National Enquirer is real news. It means we should have a skeptical frame for anything we read on a controversial issue, instead of a Manichean view of news sources.
Do you believe that typical watchers of Fox News or readers of Breitbart demonstrate your recommended open-minded skepticism? If not, then your point is moot.
And if you think they do, you must be living in an alternate reality, because much of what these folks believe is utter bullshit. Many of them deliberately never leave the right-wing echo chamber, and as has been repeatedly shown with Breitbart and the like, and with the many of Trump’s campaign claims, much of what they believe is just outrageously factually wrong.
You seem exceptionally hung up on this Matthews point. At worst, he was naive about believing all of Castro’s claims and his relationship with Castro and the revolutionaries may have given his writing a more sympathetic slant than was warranted in historical retrospect. It is far beyond any kind of rational stretch to call this “fake news”. The story of the Castro regime is a complicated one in which the current American perspective, especially among conservatives, tends toward the opposite extreme of simplistic demonizing. Perhaps you should take your own advice about avoiding a Manichean view of controversial issues.
I would ask you to read again the New York Times quote in my post #87. The US was trying hard in those days to stay neutral but becoming increasingly aware of the evils of the fascist powers, and I really believe the quote is accurate – that Americans had among the most complete news and balanced perspective on the European situation compared to almost any other nation, and that this was due to competent media and excellent journalism such as that exemplified by the New York Times. This has been seriously undermined today by several factors, not the least of which is the ease with which fraudulent sources can manufacture and disseminate fake news.
That was actually the point made by Science writer Peter Hadfield. Read again what you posted in reply to wolfpup, that was nothing but demanding that just because of a single article we should drop the NYT or other sources he uses.
No, I don’t believe the watchers of Fox News and readers of Breitbart do that in the main, however I don’t believe the listeners of NPR and readers of the New York Times do either.
My point on the Matthews and Castro thing is that it is easy to call something you don’t agree with fake news and something you agree with a mistake or bad interpretation. Liberals eat up half truths that serve their prejudices just as fast as conservatives.
It does not look like this in this thread, besides the Breitbart spin on the reporter’s view you also did accept gladly the spin from sources that grabbed that flawed and debunked voter study and the fake news sites continue to harp on that single paper, regardless of how discredited the report is.
And yes, Trump also fell for it and with him having the most powerful bully pulpit, he is causing a lot of harm.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487
How do you draw the conclusion that the study has been debunked? It has weaknesses as the authors recognize, but the article you quoted is hardly persuasive to conclude that the study has been debunked.
The author of the article, Shaffner, identified variances in responses between 2010 and 2012 for the same group of folks where they claimed they were either citizens or non-citizens over the different time period. They highlight the different responses to demonstrate that people make mistakes when filling out the forms. That’s true, but they then jump to the conclusion that all of these variances are attributable to mistakes, and that of course these must be actual citizens. If we are to accept that mistakes are made in filling out these forms, it is certainly plausible that the people who were filling out the forms made mistakes in a way that supported the other possibility. Without verifying each individual, it’s premature to conclude the direction of the mistake made.
But then they try to eliminate this reporting error by only looking at instances where the responses were consistent across 2010 and 2012:
Here they simply conclude that even though there is a person that indicated they were a non-citizen in both survey periods, that it’s unlikely to be a case of an actual non-citizen voting. Based on nothing. I wouldn’t call that fake news, but it’s certainly not debunked. Given there were 135M people voting in the 2016 election, 1 out of 85 is quite a high number (I’m not sure that’s a good way to extrapolate).
Then the author goes on to say the likely % of non-citizens voting is zero. Now here I’m going to say that this is false. The likely % of non-citizens voting is > zero. Perhaps if the author is rounding to the nearest whole percentage point then it would be accurate but as it’s written it can’t be.
Then the author says this:
While I believe Trump’s claims were wrong, a more accurate statement would have been to say there is no evidence for Trump’s claims, or that they are unlikely to be true. All unsupported claims are not equal, but when criticizing unsupported claims it seems like it would be important to not make them.
Besides his points also being peer reviewed, most other studies also point to the very low number of illegal votes or illegals voting. And I cited them too, please do not fall for the fakers.
There is also this addition to the blog article that gave attention to that study that was linked to death by many on the right in their game of telephone:
And to top it off it look like here you are refusing to notice that the flawed study led their authors to the conclusion that illegal votes would give the 2014 elections to the Democrats. So not only debunked but also wrong in 2014. So yeah, it is even reheated baloney.
As the subject here is about fighting fake news one important item that helps identify who is not likely to be correct happens when the newsmakers are relying on one dubious source of information or reused like when creationists usesthe Nebraska man point.
When I pointed out regarding the voting study of 2014 that it was a very odd paper I was remembering what Peter Sinclair at Climate Crocks (now he works at Yale University in their climate portal) pointed out at what it is happening here. And it is related a lot with fake news and misinformation. Many of the ones that are making fake news out there depend many times on a single and dubious paper or authorities, the basic problem thought is that most of the rest of the research published does not agree with the conclusions of a few papers or researchers; but for the propaganda makers that is not a problem, their plans were to get dubious papers published to set the stage to their disinformation efforts. It is not a new thing:
http://www.captionfinder.com/v?id=87f376dcdd53ea079c15bc13680f20
I will say that in this case the editors of the journal might not have been sympathetic to the authors of the original flawed study, because many of the new style electronic journals seem to have problems on getting good and plenty of help with their reviews. In any case whereas published under dubious or not very good reviewed efforts the result is the same: Ambrosia for the misleader sources out there.
In this thread? I must have missed it. I’d be interested in reading them.
So I read that article, the author’s response, but I could not access the linked peer reveiwed article because it is behind a paywall. In any event, from the response:
Nevertheless, we agree with critics that the limitations of inferences based upon a single survey make additional surveys desirable.
…
In both our article and blog post we have acknowledged the limitations of our analysis. We continue to welcome criticisms of our methodology and attempts to validate, replicate or refute our study. Knowledge emerges from debate, dialogue and critical examination of findings—processes that are intrinsically contentious. We trust that our colleagues share our appreciation of the value of this debate — and more importantly, of our willingness to engage in it.
[/quote]
Published under the Washington Post banner. Is this what you would characterize as fake news? This is why I earlier stressed the importance of having parameters around the definition. How do you assess the claim that the likely % of non-citizens voting is zero? Or that the criticism you linked simply dismisses the 1 out of 85 that didn’t fit their narrative? Is that fake news too?
I couldn’t read the actual prediction because it was also behind a paywall. But taking it at face value, a single prediction that is not borne out doesn’t render the basis for drawing that conclusion as baloney. I think 538 had essentially a 2 out of 3 chance that Clinton would win the election. Wang was even higher. Their methods weren’t necessarily baloney.
It is still more accurate than the millions Trump and Breitbart are getting from the flawed study. A study that as even you have pointed, does not really offer a good reason for the right wing sources of information to use it for support.
But this looks more like a begging the question fallacy. As it was reported if the evidence is not compelling the conclusions are not really worthy of much consideration, except of course that it was given so much importance and made a mountain out of a mole hill that in turn results in fake news. From one of the many replies and rebuttals:
Again, that was pointed out before the 2014 election showed how hollow the worry coming from the conclusion of the original paper was. And yes, Braitbart also spewed it out far and wide. Really, reheating a study that missed the practical application (the mid term election of 2014) and claiming nowadays that it remains the best Trump and others can still point at is very underwhelming.