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.

13 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This. It's insane to me as a person who grew up overseas how the US news orgs conduct themselves. Gone are the days when you heard the news anchors recite the facts of the day, letting you know what new laws were adopted, who did what, anything notable that happened, and who died. Watch BBC World Service for accurate reporting on US events. It will fry your brain less than the absolute garbage the various news orgs put out these days.

    I can not believe news organizations are actually endorsing politicians! Its effectively saying: We are for Candidate X, so anything we are going to report to you on Candidate X is going to be portrayed in a positive light. Anything their opponents do or way will be portrayed negatively. We are not fair, or balanced, we are encouraging you to pick our choice, who is Candidate X. Fucking rubbish. I don't need your opinions, thats not why you travel with the president. I need the facts, and just that.

  2. No alternatives by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:No alternatives by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe America's idea of centre is fucked up.

    2. Re:No alternatives by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe the world's view of "center" is fucked up.Because if your idea of "center" is Liberal Socialist ... what is right? Barely socialist?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Breitbart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. And Slashdot posts the most stories about Facebook by Gussington · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  5. Re: Wonder what percentage consulted real news out by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Marsoupial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit. The way I get my news is by reading both liberal- and conservative-leaning news outlets. The truth is often somewhere in between.

  7. Re:naturally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As opposed to getting their news from .. comedy channel like the whiny children rioting in the streets today?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't care that major media outlets are biased. What I find troubling is that media outlets continue to claim to be unbiased when they they are obviously are not (both left and right).

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  9. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit.

    But that's no excuse not to give it the old college try. I expect people to have viewpoints different than my own, but I don't like to be deliberately manipulated.

  10. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, implicit or explicit.

    No it's not. The news media has simply stopped trying. AT ALL.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  11. Re:I got most of my news from the Onion by saloomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. Evil is as much defined by history and its victors as it is by the consensus of the public. Is America evil? Most would say no, but it did pop two nuclear bombs to effectively end the Japanese campaign to fight in their own vicinity. America also committed mass genocide when it moved westward and ended an entire civilization of millions of people (Native Americans). It keeps humans captive with no day in court (Guantanamo Bay), kills human being ex-judiciously (drone strikes and collateral damage), and supports oppressive dictators who play ball (Saddam Hussein is given a key to the city of Detroit).

    Surely we don't consider America totally evil. They gave us the west coast and a subdued Japanese empire, allowing for the rest of the oriental countries to flourish. Back then though, I'm sure many modern SJWs would have campaigned against those efforts.

    Let me be clear. I'm not condoning the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I am not condoning genocide either.

    We see trump and his alt-right compatriots,racist and incendiary remarks towards illegal immigrants, and muslims, and are quick to paint him with Hitlers colors, but that is not an accurate depiction of the man. He did not make disparaging remarks about all Mexicans, or all Mexican Americans for that matter. He made disparaging remarks about "rapists, and murderers", or "bad hombres". He wants to stop the bad ones from importing massive amounts of narcotics, smuggling in convicts from Mexico and most of Central and South America. I don't necessarily agree with that policy, but I see where he is coming from. Lets be honest with ourselves on illegal immigration. It is a crime. There is a sovereign state that demands an entry process for immigration. Millions of honest and hard working foreigners work effortlessly to qualify and seek to relocate their lives in hope of a better future with more freedoms than they presently have. Those who are here illegally are effectively cutting in line to get here, and undermining the country they are trying to become a part of from the get go. That is not fair. It is not fair to those who have followed procedures, it is not fair to those who took the time and followed the law.

    If I break into your house, and squat in it, instead of working hard to afford to purchase it, I would fully expect that I will be evicted, if no charges are brought on me for breaking and entering. Even if I have lived in it for a long time, and have no where else to go, I am still breaking the law and deserve to be kicked out. Trump isn't even going that far either. He has stated that he wants to deport the criminal elements either, those who have committed terrible crimes. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you? There is a reason we have an immigration process and a department we spend a lot of money to enforce it. It's to vet who we give visa's to, and who we allow to naturalize. If these Mexicans were Arabs, and it was Iraq, or Iran, or Sudan on our Southern Border, would deporting them still be such a huge issue?

    Back to trump: I believe he has a lot of bad positions, and he surrounds himself with some very questionable people in my book. But we elected him, and we have to see what he renders. We don't have a choice in that matter. I don't believe for a moment that he or anyone he is bringing into the White House are out to harm America. I believe they are patriots and their intentions are good.

    I don't believe he is evil, but because the news outlets want to decide for me, I can not rely on their reporting to receive fair facts. This is worse due to the consequence of not knowing what really happens in politics. The best defense against an evil government is a well informed public with free access to information, and the freedom of the press is supposed to gaurantee us that. But what happens when the "free press" aligns itself with a falsehood? I can no longer be informed, and can not decide for myself what is evil. Thats the real problem here.