It's Time for the Epstein Story to Be Buried
RFK Revealed Why He Wasn't Scared of COVID...It Was a Legendary Answer
A New Poll Shows Old Media Resistance, and Nicolle Wallace Decides Which Country...
Is Free Speech Really the Highest Value?
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
The Antisemitism Broken Record
Before Protesting ICE, Learn How Government Works
Republican Congress Looks Like a Democrat Majority on TV News
Immigration Is Shaking Up Political Parties in Britain, Europe and the US
Representing the United States on the World Stage Is a Privilege, Not a...
Older Generations Teach the Lost Art of Romance
Solving the Just About Unsolvable Russo-Ukrainian War
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
Tipsheet

The Economist: Fake News Didn't Sway The 2016 Election

The Economist: Fake News Didn't Sway The 2016 Election

After her stunning loss to President Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said that fake news was a threat that needs to be addressed. Some believe that fake news spread on social media, coupled with Russian interference influenced the election. In fact, our intelligence agencies noted that Russia released a deluge of propaganda through social media trolls and state-funded media outlets. That’s not the same thing as hacking. As for fake news, well, it might have had some influence—no doubt—but it wasn’t “pivotal,” according to The Economist.

Advertisement

Two economic professors, Hunt Allcott of New York University and Matthew Gentzkow of Stanford University, collected scores of fake news stories shared during the 2016 cycle and surveyed 1,200 people’s reactions to them. The publication added that while fake news didn’t play a pivotal role, the massive amounts of fake information spewed into the social media sphere is disconcerting [emphasis mine]:

Their analysis has something of a sausage factory about it—the outputs are more appealing than the inputs. The lack of difference between recall rates of the “real” fake news and the “fake” fake news is worrying, as it suggests that respondents were guessing for all of their answers. On the other hand, it could reflect the fact that their placebo, “fake” fake headlines were too plausible, in which case their correction would significantly underestimate exposure to fake news. Whichever is true, their main finding, that fake news would need to be overwhelmingly more powerful than television ads to have changed the election result, holds up. False headlines might have contributed to the election outcome, but the evidence here does not suggest that it was pivotal.

All this is not to say that people should not worry about a slow descent into a post-truth world. Although it seems unlikely that fake news had a similar effect on vote-switching to television ads (14% of those surveyed in the study reported that social media was their “most important” news source) the corrosive effects of disinformation on public trust in institutions should not be dismissed.

Advertisement

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Founder Mark Zuckerberg have both said that fake news, while disconcerting and troublesome, did not sway the election. Hillary Clinton did most of the swaying by not conducting outreach to tens of millions of working class voters and being incapable of energizing the Obama coalition.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement