New Study Proves the Hysteria about Fake News… was FAKE!

A study has found that fake news didn’t determine the outcome of the election!

The story of fake news is pretty much a fake news story.

From the website, Study Finds:

As social media sites like Facebook and Snapchat move to eliminate “fake news” reports from their sites, researchers from Stanford and New York Universities say Americans can be sure of one thing: the phenomenon did not affect the results of the presidential election.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Liberal Students Throw Tantrum when Biologist says Men and Women are Different          

fake newsThe new study released last month investigated the influence that fake news may have had on President Trump’s victory.

NYU economics professor Hunt Allcott and Stanford economics professor Matthew Gentzkow led the research. The pair ran a series of tests to determine which fake news articles were circulated, how much of it was circulated, and the amount of voters that believed the stories to be true.

Once they gathered an assortment of fake news stories, Gentzkow and Allcott used fact-checking resources in order to verify that these stories were fake. They then conducted a post-election survey that consisted of 1,200 voters.

Participants were asked what their primary or “most important” source of 2016 election news was. Next, they were presented with a list of true and false news stories, and asked two questions concerning each individual story. The first was whether or not the participant remembered seeing the story. The second question asked whether or not they believed the story.

Although fake news stories in Trump’s favor were shared more times (30 million compared to 8 million for Hillary Clinton), the authors of the report had determined that these stories still did not reach enough voters nationwide to change the election results.

For one, the study found that most people figured out that the stories were fake. No one was fooled into voting for a candidate based on fake news.

That makes sense. I know many people who share stories that they don’t believe are true because they think the fake news stories are funny. Essentially, fake news stories are treated as inside jokes. If that is what is going on, then “fake news stories in Trump’s favor” were shared more often because more people had already decided to vote for Donald Trump.

Note that, even though Hillary Clinton supposedly won that popular vote, those voters weren’t showing enthusiasm by sharing stories that favored her. They didn’t seem to want to talk about their favorite candidate online.

The study also found that, for sharing fake news stories to have been influential, “a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.” Not likely.

The study concludes not only that “fake news” didn’t determine the outcome of the election, but that “social media were not the most important source of election news.”

Imagine that!

This is good news for conservatives. It means that even if government succeeds in censoring social media in an attempt to engineer public opinion, the effort probably won’t work. The populist groundswell that governments fear is spreading by other means.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.