Liberal media has been joyfully boasting the headline that "Trump Supporters" or "Rightwingers" are the major source for sharing "junk news" on social media. That allegation is based on the recent report from The Oxford Internet Institute. I tried to read the actual report but it's long, dry and in tiny little print. So, most people are going to rely on the translation from their "legitimate" news site of preference. But apparently, none of them bothered to look at THE ACTUAL LIST of sites used to prove this.
Give the liberal Washington Post props for actually questioning the data. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/02/07/study-bashes-trumpites-for-promoting-junk-news-but-whats-that/?utm\_term=.f6f24f14e9aa&wpisrc=nl\_opinions&wpmm=1) If you pull up the Excel spreadsheet and read off the names, you'll see some obvious offenders: The Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, Infowars - HANNITY! Yeah, those are some of the biggest garbage sites on the internet (and if you share any of them on your social media, you are holding up a sign reading "I am stupid and gullible. Please mock me."
To be honest, I've never heard of most of these. I don't even want to KNOW what "barenakedislam" posts on its website. I'm just gonna assume it's nothing I want to read and move on. Apparently, the ".re" extension at the end of a website indicates it's registered in the French island of "Reunion." Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. I can just guess what the spin on "clintonemail" must be.
But some of these are perfectly legitimate news organizations. Rasmussen reports is one of the most respected polling organizations. New York Daily News is an ACTUAL newspaper. Liberals may disagree with them, but nobody can claim that National Review is not a legitimate organization. The Federalist definitely has a Libertarian viewpoint, but they're not out there pushing garbage stories. They also singled out our cousins over at Red State, which provides commentary very much like we do ------
BUT THEY DIDN'T MENTION THE RESURGENT! How dare they leave us off such a prestigious list! I think Erick should go complain to somebody.
Obviously, Republicans (or "rightwingers" if you want to get pejorative about it) are fare more likely to share stories from National Review. In fact, the majority of these sites are "conservative fake news" sites. Which doesn't mean there aren't an equal amount of "liberal junk news" sites. I see that "Occupy Democrat" made the list, but "Political Dig," "Rawstory," and "Queerty" did not. And I found those sites in 30 seconds of scrolling down the Facebook page of one of my liberal friends. I won't even mention the dozen garbage pages she "likes" and "shares" from on a daily basis.
It's easy to prove your bias when you stack the evidence in your own favor. So, what exactly DO you call a bogus study conducted by a clearly biased organization that gets cited to confirm the liberal media's worst suspicions about conservatives?
I'd call that bold faced lying because "fake news" just doesn't cover it.