Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Users Interacted Most With Articles From Fox News, CNN and Breitbart In Month Leading Up To Nov 10
Quartz's charts and visualization service The Atlas, has released an insightful chart that shows the "total reader interactions with articles on Facebook" between October 11, 2016 and November 10, 2016. What's surprising is that Breitbart beat a list of establishment media outlets in total Facebook interactions. By far the source with the most interacted articles was Fox News, as it had more than 44 million people interact with its articles. CNN and Breitbart were neck-and-neck with more than 18 million interactions.
It seemed to make as much sense as anywhere else.
Because the type of people who read Breitbart are the type of people that would wouldn't bat an eye at getting their news from their Facebook feed.
"Old man yells at systemd"
She lost because she thought she was entitled. She rarely held rallies and barely spoke at the ones she did have. She never visited all kinds of swing states after the primaries. She was simply out worked. Obama even said this.
neither does CNN NBC or ABC. It's all clickbait these days. Shitty thing too.
Like the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, and LA Times instead of infotainment news sources like CNN, Fox News, and Breitbart. Not to say the newspapers I listed are not without their own institutional bias but at least they have actual investigative journalists on the payroll and at least try to be objective.
How unfortunate for you, an alternate reality basement dweller.
Goes to show all the fuss about fake news stories on Facebook was true after all, Fox News is about as fake as it gets.
than any other nationality.
I've seen the Facebook crowd interact with FOX news articles on Facebook. "Interact" doesn't mean "excitedly agreed with." Most of the stories Facebook chooses from right-leaning sources are designed to incite a response from the left, and are hence counter-productive to the right. If they choose a left-leaning source then it's much more likely to be somewhat vapid and softball in nature, something along the lines of "A bird landed on his podium. Tee-hee!"
I'd wager most of these stories were chosen to incense the left, and the fact they were viewed isn't proof of Facebook's conservative leanings, an idea which anyone who has visited the site realizes is just plain silly to even consider.
Facebook people shall not be allowed to share the rest of the internet with everyone else. These people must be contained like they were in AOL to prevent them from polluting other parts of the internet. Zuckerberg should be shunned by the society for his failure to keep his subscribers from spilling over.
Here's why:
http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_...
The only mainstream media to the right is Fox News. Breitbart is even further right, and that's one of the only other alternatives. However if you look to the left, there are a dozen news organizations (including PBS, which just seems wrong somehow, being government funded).
So what this means is that FB users that identify with the liberal news organizations have their "interactions" divided across those dozen news organizations on the left (CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, on and on). Whereas those with conservative views only had a couple of options to choose from. Thus those couple options on the right got more interactions because they were not diluted across so many news choices.
Better known as 318230.
Breitbart values it's credibility and doesn't indulge the the crazy "fake" news. They aren't perfect, but they're also no worse than the rest. If Breitbart is what GoogleFacebookTwitterCNBCetal are calling "fake" news then this whole "fake" news meme is exactly the kind of bullshit I suspect it is.
Seriously, fucking give up with Facebook stories, we know it's shit so leave us in peace.
Is Slashdot getting paid to keep Facebook on the front page, it sure seems that way....
Two years ago I would've agreed with you, but things have changed (except that CNN was just as much of a laughinstock then as now, and has been since the plane). CNN is now the laughably biased one failing hard at pretending they're neutral while Fox is about the closest thing left to responsible journalism. Remember that Trump publicly went to war with Fox early in the campaign, and there's never been any semblance of pro-Trump unanimity at Fox the way there was against Obama, let alone to a degree that would lead them to flush their journalistic ethic down the toilet in the style of pre-Trump Fox or present-day CNN/NYT/etc. Even as we speak Megyn Kelly is trying to exploit her longstanding feud with Trump to advance her career.
NYT and WaPo both list all credibility this election cycle. Pretty much everything they published was anti-Trump opinion. NYT admitted it, the Post is still in denial.
Real sources like discarded fish wrappings, poems written on leaves, the patterns on clouds in the sky
Hey, it's probably more accurate.
Never trust the MSM. In just one day, Washington Post wrote 18 articles attacking Bernie Sanders, from 12 writers.
In just one day.
They don't want you to know what's going on, just like they don't want you to see the seven fully operational NSA data collection complexes inside the USA (not the one you think you know about).
Just like they don't want you to know that all US government drones purchased since July 2016 have had line of sight tracking and facial recognition software. Every single one.
Think about who controls all that in a couple of months.
Oh, and the Chinese get feeds from your cell phones. Including Apple. Not just Android.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The media worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton to support her campaign. See wikileaks for the proof. So in order to demonstrate his commitment to the principles of a free and fair press, Trump has installed the CEO of the most pro-trump media company as his right hand man.
Real news? Most of those were collaborating with the DNC and lying to us about things like the Podesta email dump.
That said, CNN definitely belongs on the fake new category. As for Fox, well, it depends on the program. Quite a few people there were rooting for Hillary. They were also just about the last one to call the race for Hillary, long after the AP and everyone else had given up on it. They had bystanders chanting "call it!" on them and they wouldn't.
Look, there is a likely reason for her lack of anything on the Campaign Trail, as it might have killed her, with her health issues.
And everyone saying she was "healthy" is pretty much taking her word for it (and ignoring every piece of evidence to the contrary).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No
Compliance with site policy to keep an account is not approval or support of the sites or its politics.
People soon learn not to post links to material they really enjoy and use other IM, email or enjoy much or fun and better stand alone portals.
Social media can offer a few safe listed media sites but its users will just play along.
If every comment and link is been watched by teams of SJW, best just to use the sites features.
What a social media site then offers as group think is then exposed by the reality of elections results nation wide.
If a social media site only allows links to a set few media sites, all its users will learn to use such links on that site.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I used to think Faux News, but this past year I see most others are even worse.
But many people quickly get the biases of each news channel. The biases can mostly be filtered out to get to the bit of truth that began the stories. Unless people have their own biases to begin with, in which case the biased news only serve to reinforce them and not to inform in any meaningful way.
Al Jazeera [English language site] is pretty high in my Facebook suggested content. I have no idea why - I don't live in Asia, I speak no Arabic, but somehow Facebook engines have decided that it must be a good source. I am sure that Russian FB population interacts with TASS or whatnot, Chinese with their fine news sources and so on.
How can those all miss from the study?
Hillary lost, more than anything else, because she was female.
Absolute bullshit.
Not stupid people.
Not just ideological people.
People looking for real information that other 'mainstream' news organizations beholden to a one-sided agenda.
Not perfect but a service that fills in the gaps and is a counterbalance to EVERY other source.
The major media outlets went all into the tank for Hillary. The New York Times abandoned even a pretense of objectivity to editorialize against Trump on their front page. Wikileaks proved that CNN and the Washington Post (among others) actively colluded with the Clinton campaign against Trump.
And you know who this hurt most of all? Democrats. Because the MSM was so in the tank for Hillary, the Clinton campaign couldn't get the information it needed to make tactical choices on what money and effort to spend where. Wouldn't it have been more valuable for them to hear "Hey, Hillary may have a problem with previously Democratic blue collar voters in the rust belt" than "Campaign Inevitable is going to crush all puny obstacles between her and the White House! You go girl!"?
Instead they tried to drag the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President of the United States over the finish line, and now they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Americans consume a healthy diet of propaganda and lies. No wonder, our racist overlord won the election. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1861, and compare the amount of racist propaganda consumed by the American South versus the average Trump voter.
Did nazi that coming!
...still looking for someone, anyone to blame for their colossal defeat at the polls.
When the simple answer is that people were sick of patronizing liberalism, enough to roll the dice on goofy blowhard like Trump.
-Styopa
No it's just BeauHD grasping at straws trying to understand how Hillary wasn't crowned victor the other day. Pathetic really
NYT is still at it. Friday they ran a story about how Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly before the first debate, citing her book as the source. When asked about it Mrs. Kelly denied she ever implied she was poisoned and it was a stomach virus.
Same day the NYT said they were now dedicated to only telling the truth.
More Americans get their news from the Daily Show
A damn comedy show. Pathetic.
Is there anything to back this up?
CNN isn't left. MSNBC isn't either. Rachel F'n Maddow doesn't make MSNBC left. When I start seeing front page editorials demanding stronger Unions and Single Payer Health Care I'll start calling them left.
Oh, you meant social issues, right? Gays marrying and such? That's nice and all. But it doesn't pay the bills. The media is left on social issues and hard right on economic issues. When you take even a cursory glance at who owns them the reasons become obvious. You can't run anything bigger than Mother Jones without getting bought out by some billionaire. If all else fails they'll do to you what they did to Gawker.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With all the data scraping that I did on twitter for the month of October leading up to the election.
The payouts for a trump win were 10-1 on quite a # of websites. I knew he was going to win, I should have made some bets. :(
Fox News is also a comedy show. Most viewers just don't realize that.
Why is it The Right sucks at comedy and The Left sucks at AM radio?
Table-ized A.I.
The horribleness of Trump is a fact, not an opinion.
Play Command HQ online
Your posts are a comedy show.
The Wikileaks emails revealed that The Washington Post hosted a joint fundraiser with the Clinton campaign, although the Post was unlisted at the fundraiser. “We were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it,” DNC Finance Director Jordan Kaplan wrote to DNC Election Strategies Adviser Anu Rangappa. http://observer.com/2016/08/wi...
I tried downloading the data, and it was just the same chart in csv format. What are interactions, how are they measured, and how was the data gathered? How the hell did this get out of the firehose?
Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post’s White House bureau chief, emailed several people close to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, to give him a “heads up” that his name would appear in a pending article about lobbyists, according to Wikileaks. Throughout the email exchange uncovered by Wikileaks, Eilperin tried to reassure Podesta that his place in the pending story is just “one line” buried late in the story. She also reached out to several people to make sure that it did not catch Podesta “off guard.”
Hey, whipslash, how about fixing the annoying IE bug?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's unfortunate but I wonder if it's really that uncommon for reporters to give their recurring subjects heads up, perhaps to keep them as future sources. And the paper still reported the news. Contrast that will the selective disclosure we see on the TV news outlets.
Is it when you hover over your account name and then Account? or where
If owning a vagina was such a goddamned liability, why did she make it 50% of her campaign platform? (The other 50%, of course, being "Trump is Hitler")
They have absolutely done themselves in. For instance, wasn't CNN responsible for telling people looking at Wikileaks was illegal? Maybe you can be punished for that as a government employee, but beyond blocking PayPal donations, I don't think the government can legally do anything to a private citizen for reading that information on Wikileaks.
What CNN did was blatantly anti-civic behavior.
Oh, by the way, the UK and Sweden are going to have to pay Assange for keeping him locked up all these years, according to a recent UN working group decision.
Trump truly is horrible I agree. The Democrats went to a large amount of trouble to pick a candidate that could lose to him. Trump had one major advantage in this election. He's not Hilliary Clinton. That, and only that, got him elected. If the Dems had run pretty much anyone else with the possible exception of Pelosi (who is not corrupt, just bat shit crazy) they most likely would have won in a HUGE landslide. Sadly they made up their mind 2 years or more ago that they were going to run Hilliary. I'd bet, even after 4 insane years of Trump as president he could still beat her again in 2020.
Yep - it's there. https://slashdot.org///slashdo...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Like the NY Times ... and at least try to be objective.
Did you really use "NY Times" and "try to be objective" in a single statement?!?!?!
Because... not so much...:
For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”
What was that you were saying about the NY Times and objectivity?
How do you think they got so embarrassed by Trump's victory? Note well where that reporter that wrote the linked story previously worked: the LA Times, hardly a bastion of alt-right support. Yet the LA Times was one of the few media outlets that pretty much nailed Trump's victory from the beginning. Got the stones to wonder why the LA Times got it right, and the NY Times was EMBARRASSED? Think it might be that the stories in the LA Times are driven by facts while the stories at the NY Times are driven by editors who demand a narrative?
A lot of those sites have gone pawall, so traffic grts restricted.
Agreed, FB, Twitter, Google, all went on attack against Trump supporters they labeled Alt-Right. Defund and banned.
The Right sucks at AM radio too. Have you listened to it? Continuous shilling for alternative medicine garbage and mostly commercials. The alternative medicine ads gives some insight to their audience. During the election cycle it was just about 100% polemics against Hillary. I don't know how much you can possibly talk about the email scandal, but they managed to stretch it about 9 months.
This. A thousand times, this.
Wow, you really buy into conservative propaganda hook line and sinker with the Hillary's health stuff. Please, just try to have a little critical thinking when you're watching Alex Jones.
I'm with whiplash on this one.
The right wing people have been whining here horrendously how facebook has this massive liberal bias. This actually sheds light on whether that is true or not. It appears it is not true.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The front page of CNN was nothing but a liberal hit-job against Trump. It was clear that CNN had taken the reins off of their editors and let them post personal opinion in-place of actual facts. It was pathetic and disappointing since CNN is where I normally go for news. That has changed now since the FoxNews website consistently had fair coverage of both Democrats and Republicans, pointed out heated battles on all sides, and discussed Hillary and Trump with rational thought rather than calling them names. I still wouldn't watch the Fox News channel as their TV personalities are terrible human beings, but the editors of their website do an excellent job providing balanced coverage.
Never heard of Breitbart, I thought that was a trucking company?
Were more people interacting with these news sites in a positive way or a negative one? For example, say Breitbart posts a story saying something positive about Trump. Where there more Likes or "dislikes" (angry, sad, haha) on Facebook? That information could tell you a lot about the mood of the Facebook voter.
Actually, the fact that even the Republican establishment didn't like him was part of the reason I voted for Trump. We finally have a president that isn't in anyone's back pocket but his own. As for 2020, I fear we will see Feinstein make a run for President, as a former California native I can only tell you: she will be worse than Carly Fiorina would ever be.
Once, news agencies at least pretended to be interested in the facts. However, now profit and ratings are more important then responsible journalism. Now the news companies must compete with twitter and blogs. Of course there used to be a lot more chance of monetary loss for inaccurately reporting facts, but most of that was gutted in court because the big networks tried to use it to shut down bloggers. Maybe it is time to bring some of it back.
Feeling old that I remember the days when networks were expected to give equal voice to opposing opinion if they presented anything other then plain facts.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Why would it ever be considered a news source?
I meant in terms of commercial success. Accuracy and relevance is another matter altogether.
Table-ized A.I.
no, I didn't RTFA.
the headline was enough for me.
whipslash didn't say that. He simply said Facebook did not pay Slashdot to post stories about them.
[..] Trump had one major advantage in this election. He's not Hilliary Clinton. That, and only that, got him elected. [...]
I'd note that from some of the leaks, apparently they'd wanted him as an opponent on the off chance that people would decide that Trump was worse than her--which is its own major problem, since if you're having to worry about that...maybe you've anointed the wrong heir.
I think you're slightly off here on how free they were to pick who to run, too, but that's because I actually have found rather convincing that the popularity of both Trump and Saunder represented a popular rejection (on both the Left and Right) of the establishment--the problem of who we got as the alternate to the establishment is beside the point, though I think it's worth appreciating the irony of the establishment candidate ending up being the one run by the Left.
To communicate ideas we need something that is understood by both the speaker and the listener. There are not any concise decent alternatives yet.
But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture, and this is often what right versus left is about. Maybe "centrist" would then be between these, such as suburbia.
In general, these are differences in assumptions or behaviors between them.
Urban (left):
- Multiculturalism is embraced and celebrated
- Mixed economic system (market & socialism)
- All religions treated equally
- Variety is good
- Laws should focus on the practical over morality (because diff religions have diff morality concepts)
- Profiling is offensive
- Government to help the poor and sick
- Bigger law enforcement instead of reliance on personal guns for protection
- Climate change is a real problem
- Respect for formal education and subject experts
Rural (right):
- Laws and culture guided by religion, generally Evangelical
- Protestant European culture is superior
- Profiling is acceptable
- Capitalism is far superior to socialism in almost all cases (small gov't)
- Churches and donations are to take care of poor and sick, not gov't
- Large military
- Gun for DIY law enforcement instead of lots of cops
- Climate change is a gov't influenced hoax to grow gov't control
- Suspicion of subject experts, favoring alleged common sense and "gut feelings", often guided by prayer
Table-ized A.I.