LOL: Cornel West Thinks Gavin Newsom Has a White Supremacist Mindset
Transgender Charged After Shooting at Border Patrol in New Hampshire
Democrats Will Lose Their Minds After JD Vance's Announcement About Minnesota Fraud
Chinese Official Thought ChatGPT Was Private – Now We Know How China Silences...
They Spied on Kash Patel and Susie Wiles – Now They Are Paying...
Lawmakers Grappling With Potential Iran Airstrikes
Feds Raid Los Angeles School District Superintendent's Home and Office
The Judicial Coup Continues As Yet Another Judge Tries to Stop Trump's Deportation...
Following Backlash, Pro-Abortion Professor Withdraws From Notre Dame Appointment
Where's the Backlash? Olympic Hockey Hero Gets a Warm Welcome in New Jersey
Anti-Gun Hysteria Leading to Draconian Proposals for 3D Printers
Rep. Wesley Hunt Slams Gavin Newsom For His Racist Comments: 'You're Not Like...
If This CA City Elects This Man, It Will Be a New Low...
‘Tax the Jews’ Chants Erupt at San Francisco Mayor’s Tax Reform Press Conference
Democrats Race to Do Damage Control After Refusing to Stand for Americans First
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