Trump Supporters share more fake news on social media!

Well, yeah. If you consider sites like National Review and Rasmussen "junk news."

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.

Let's face it if "rightwingers" aren't posting "news?" stories from CNN,NBC,ABC or MSNBC, it is automatically considered "Fake News" by the main stream news media.

1

Perception is everything.

Refusing to report news, is about as bad as fake news. Some news is not real liberal or conservative, but part of the establishment. I try and get as close as possible to the reporting source without going through social media. I look at the headlines of the major media, to see what lie is being pushed for the day. Much of the mainstream news thinks everything happens between, New York City and DC or the left coast. They ignore fly-over country. A case Polls done by zip or area code can dictate the outcome. A case in point for me is the birther issue. I was not a birther until the story about a forgery appeared. The story ended with the state of Hawaii blocking the records that would be the final proof either way. One of the witnesses dies in a airplane crash. Obama's college transcript and loan information have been kept hidden. How much have you checked and double checked the information? Is something bogus because it is actually bogus, or because you don't like it? Many thing can be unlikely but not impossible.

1

Take your premise and apply it to immigration. The problem is generalization. Some children crossed the border on their own, others with parents. Those 18 and older are now adults. A study of the Arizona prison population gives you information on Arizona, how does it apply nationally? Obama broke the law by not enforcing immigration. We need laws and enforcement going forward. For DACA and the dreamers they need to show they have assimilated, pass history/civics test plus the ability to speak English. This after a through background check. Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Rico ans and others from South America are all Hispanic but different. One of the biggest lies from the liberal left is about guns. Gun laws do little, considering every thing that can be used as a weapon. People in congress who have never made a payroll, know more than a person that hired thousands?

What I've seen as really funny about the MSM is that they have crossed over so far into the dark side, that Alex Jones has actually gained a lot of credibility as a news source, and that is saying a lot. Get past Alex's personality, and something can actually be had, on occasion. Just don't get a headache weeding through all of it. Hit the high points on his stuff and move on. Hannity gets a lot of information out, and if not for his guests, he has really good ones, he would sometimes be a disaster. He uses some words too often to make me think his vocabulary needs expanding, just enough to make me not watch a whole Hannity show. but he gets it out with people, like Sarah Carter and John Solomon, to mention only a few, enough to be a good source for information. The MSM is just about to implode. They can't keep this stuff up, for long. They don't have enough viewership to support their campaign. In the end, money will dictate they get back more to the middle.