• Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

    Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

    In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is an example of something to be careful with. Reading random studies you find on news sites that are outside your area of expertise is an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.

      In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates. Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.

      • Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reading random studies

        I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.

        you find on news sites

        It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?

        that are outside your area of expertise

        While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.

        an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.

        That’s why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?

        In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates

        It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.

        Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.

        Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.

        • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          TLDR: check your ego, it’s not about you. you apply media literacy to my comment instead of the article you shared, but maybe there’s something else going on. stop trying to protect your ego and just recognize the “good points”. any pissed off tone you get from me in this message is just me flabbergasted that you responded so defensively. we’re cool otherwise.

          and to be clear, I think conservatives ARE fucking morons, but that prejudice is exactly why this kind of study is the perfect example of when we need media literacy.

          It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?

          I didn’t say YOU found it in a news site. but these kinds of studies always pop up on Science subreddits. someone posting any study with little to no context is where manipulation begins.

          While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.

          Overconfidence is the FUCKING HEART of this issue. You dont know what you dont know, but you want to think you do. That’s true for all of us. Have you ever had to review a study’s methodology in grad school? Do you know what resources to check to determine if a study is adequately peer reviewed, and by whom? if someone says No to these, there’s a bigger risk of manipulation. There’s always more to learn.

          That’s why you read more then one study.

          YOU ONLY LINKED ONE. How many people here are going to go through finding evidence to the contrary when this supports their bias already?? Maybe a few but not a lot! Telling people to read more is great, BUT DID YOU? How many others reading this even clicked your link, let alone the follow ups? Id be shocked if it’s more than a couple of people. We make the conclusions we want to make.

          Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.

          Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.

          I understand that. I’m not saying anyone did do that. I’m saying it’s a risk. Yes, conservatives might believe more fake news. But the study cannot tell us why that is, only that it is. People love to fill in the gaps.

          • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fuck me, it’s a comment on social media, not a grad school dissertation. If you want to discuss this in the detail that you want, make you’re own post. For now, in this context, this is perfectly fine and illustrates the point that the original op was trying to make. This horseshit you’re adding to just strengthens their comments rather than weaken it like you want to do.

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So just to be clear, you’re saying it’s media literate to just go by a random study someone linked in a comment section with barely any context? And that that comment is even more media literate because someone says the comment has potential for decreasing media literacy rather than increasing it?

              Your comment is actually another great opportunity for readers to practice skepticism and media literacy, thank you.

              • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A question was asked. An answer was given with a source, and a relevant section. That is not random, nor is it without context. Sure, be sceptical of the source, and even attack parts of it that you disagree with. But you did none of that, just assumed that the original poster and everyone else reading it was illiterate in this subject. Did you even read the paper? It’s pretty easy to understand to the layman. Yeah, media literacy is good, but you’ve gone about it entirely wrong here and look like a fool.