User:Meiyingli/sandbox

Fake News Websites in the United States

Research indicates a relatively small influence of false news about the 2016 elections. Most of the diffusing sites were pro-Trump, and Facebook played an influential role in spreading misinformation. For example, in 22.1% of cases, a visit to Facebook preceded the click on a false article. A study conducted in the US noted that while the so-called fake news had broad reach during the 2016 presidential elections in the country, its impact was relatively superficial (Guo and Vargo par. 5). The report, published in a collaboration between researchers at Dartmouth College and Princeton and Exeter universities, claimed that about 60 percent of visits to fake news sites came from a large group of media consumers ultra-conservative, with a large portion of the American electorate left out. The political scientists involved point out that although "the new form of political disinformation takes center stage in journalistic evaluations" of the lawsuit, "little is known scientifically about the consumption of fake news even about who reads them (Bakir, and McStay” (160).

Regarding fighting false news on the internet, it is crucial to mention that several studies have been undertaken to establish the best approach to use. In one study, researchers combined data from opinion polls with traffic histories on the network, noting that the seizures were somewhat exaggerated as "echo chambers," in which Internet users would only find information consonant with their political views. Only a subset of Americans have extremely biased media consumption patterns with most of the fake news consumers snapping into those "10% with more conservative media diets," the study says. So while 27 percent of the voting-age population in the United States (about 65 million) have seen at least one counterfeit article in the pre-election period, relatively few Americans are genuinely interested in these extreme forms of misinformation (Khaldarova and Pantti 896).

On the other hand, fake news coverage fell slowly in a particular direction, with Donald Trump's followers "visiting most of the fake news websites, which were predominantly pro-Trump." The researchers found that 80% of all false news was firmly in favor of the then Republican candidate and current president. About 40 percent of the electorate was exposed to fake news about their candidate, compared to only 15 percent of those who voted for Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

Another confirmation was that Facebook is possibly the worst culprit for the spread of fake news and that its " fake news fact checks rarely reached its users." There is a "dramatic association between using Facebook and visits to fake news sites, " much more significant than on other platforms such as Google or Twitter. Specifically, in 22.1% of cases, a visit to Facebook preceded the click on a fake article - compared to 1.9% for Google and even less for Twitter (Allcott and Gentzkow 217). The survey suggests there is a worrying lack of fact checking or correction of erroneous information on Facebook.

Overall, American academics have found little reason to believe that fake news websites contributed towards a significant part in the 2016 presidential election (Tandoc Zheng, and Richard Ling 139). Still, consumers are warned to stay vigilant, as uncertain and incendiary coverage can even destabilize the excellence of public discourse, promote false perceptions, nurture greater antagonism against political foes, and erode confidence in the regime and media houses. Moreover, bogus news websites in the US have always existed, and unless robust cyber rules are put in place and implemented, we are far from solving the menace.

Works cited

Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. "Social media and fake news in the 2016     election." Journal of economic perspectives31.2 (2017): 211-36.

Bakir, Vian, and Andrew McStay. "Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions." Digital Journalism 6.2 (2018): 154-175.

Guo, Lei, and Chris Vargo. "Fake News" and Emerging Online Media Ecosystem: An   Integrated Intermedia Agenda-Setting Analysis of the 2016 US Presidential Election." Communication Research (2018): 0093650218777177.

Khaldarova, Irina, and Mervi Pantti. "Fake news: The narrative battle over the Ukrainian       conflict." Journalism Practice 10.7 (2016): 891-901.

Tandoc Jr, Edson C., Zheng Wei Lim, and Richard Ling. "Defining “fake news” A typology of   scholarly definitions." Digital Journalism 6.2 (2018): 137-153.