When the Law Is Optional, You Have Tyranny
ESPN Is Replacing Sunday Night Baseball With...What Now?!
The Olympics Have Ended. We Should End Sports ‘Journalism,’ Too.
It's Time for Another Episode of Scott Jennings Shredding Liberal Narratives on CNN
Did Donald Trump Call Into C-SPAN's Washington Journal? Here's What Happened.
Tucker Carlson's Sleight of Hand
Democrats Are Already Dumping on Newsom
The Great Replacement Is Worse Than You Imagined
Jesse Jackson’s Real Legacy
The Poison of Marxist Leftism
You Should Be Terrorized by What JPMorgan Did to Trump
The Party of Hate Is Unleashing Political Violence
San Fernando Valley Film Accountant Pleads Guilty to $2 Million Embezzlement Scheme
Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders Say They Don't Know How to Get Birth Certificates
Romanian Hacker Pleads Guilty in 2021 Breach of Oregon State Government Office
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