Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Facebook Government Network Networking Social Networks United States News Politics Technology

Facebook Users Interacted Most With Articles From Fox News, CNN and Breitbart In Month Leading Up To Nov 10 212

Posted by BeauHD from the anti-establishment dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Users Interacted Most With Articles From Fox News, CNN and Breitbart In Month Leading Up To Nov 10 More

Facebook Users Interacted Most With Articles From Fox News, CNN and Breitbart In Month Leading Up To Nov 10

Comments Filter:

  • I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:5, Funny)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:26PM (#53301015)
    It seemed to make as much sense as anywhere else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      And it was about as fair and accurate.

      • Re:I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:36PM (#53301101)
        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.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:48PM (#53301221)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Fortunately you're in the minority. I would much rather have everyone's minds scrubbed by Fox and Breitbart. It makes it so much easier for me to find fodder by which to feed my superiority complex.

          • Re:I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @08:10PM (#53301403)

            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).

            • And of course, when I say "they they are obviously are not", I'm simply referring to the prevailing two political parties in proper newspeak grammar.

          • Re:I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:4, Insightful)

            by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @08:20PM (#53301475)

            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.

          • Re:I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @08:21PM (#53301479) Homepage Journal

            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.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by cfalcon ( 779563 )

            Psh. The truth is in the Venn diagram where they intersect. Everything else requires further research. If a right wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is terrible and C is already happening, and a left wing website claims because of A, B will happen and is great, and D will happen, your conclusions are "A happened" and "pundits agree that B will happen". If you care about C and D, whether the pundits are mislead about B, or the merits of B, you need to keep reading.

          • Re:I got most of my news from the Onion (Score:4, Funny)

            by oakgrove ( 845019 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @10:25PM (#53302157)

            The way I get my news is by reading both liberal- and conservative-leaning news outlets.

            So now instead of being misinformed, you'll be twice as misinformed!

          • https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

          • Often, but not always and it's difficult to find sources biased in opposite directions on all issues. Brexit is nice and easy in terms of bias: The Guardian and The Express are diametrically opposite in their biases, but the truth isn't in the middle, it's often perpendicular to the line between the both - they both cherry pick facts and pile on interpretation to the point where truth is nowhere to be found. If you look at anything involving copyright, then you'll find it very difficult to find a mainstre

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Try reading Reuters. They only do simple, factual reports that other news outlets then pick up and add editorial to.

          • Absolutely true. It is however possible to TRY to be unbiased. Unfortunately, most news sources have stopped trying. I do not mind that a reporter reports things from a perspective that differs from mine, or even when he leaves out facts which support my interpretation because he thinks they are insignificant. I do mind when a reporter intentionally misquotes, or leaves out part of a quote, in order to portray the person in question as having said something offensive.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The saying goes:

          The news isn't the news. The news is how you should feel about the news. And the MSM lost it's 5th column power (rooting out corruption) a long time ago...and this election it lost it's persuasive power.

        • Well there are two parties in the US that dominate. The media is pretty much aligned with one or the other. Most are aligned (D) and Fox is more or less aligned with (R).

          If the Media/News were reporting actual "news" (like WikiLeaks dribble) Hillary would have lost by a lot more.

          • It's more complicated than that. Most journalists are under D, but most media owners are under R. It gets complicated from there.

        • I can not believe news organizations are actually endorsing politicians!

          Why? They've been doing it for a couple of hundred years.

        • . 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

          Facts aren't cut and dried. They have context. They have spin. If the budget raises $1b, that can be a 1% increase, a $1b increase, a deficit increase of $1b, an increase per taxpayer of $3.00, or any other number of framings. Choosing what context is highlighted involves biasing decisions.

          For instance, is putting live fac

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

            On the totally other side, suppose only one candidate, Candidate X, is qualified for the office. Is saying so not a fact?

            Facts are things that happen. If a candidate meets the legal qualifications for POTUS, it is a fact that they have met those qualifications. If some random shit has an opinion they pulled out of their anus, that is not a fact. So, it depends on which definition of "qualification" you are using.

            • Here I mean "qualified" as in "capable of doing the job". Suppose someone has an IQ of 60. Does that not suggest that the person is unqualified. You think the news should have to present the dry number to people and shut up? Can they tell you that's classified as mentally retarded in your world? Can they tell you a person with an IQ of 60 will be unable to handle the job effectively? What about the expert who explains that the candidate grew up in a home speaking Spanish, and therefore the majority

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tuxgeek ( 872962 )

          As an aging American type, I remember the days of the Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey types.
          Don't bother with any news outlets anymore. They're all corporate produced shit. Most of what's broadcast is filtered and/or totally slanted politically in some way. Fox News being the most dangerous offender IMV as their spew is purely slanted for right wing minded audiences, as you point out. 50% of FNC content, and I'm being generous, is related to current events. The 'Balance' is all "conservative" opinion spew

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by haruchai ( 17472 )

        What happened to the story about Facebook censoring rightwing news? Where such a fuss was made that the Cons got a face to face with Zuck himself?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... [telegraph.co.uk]

        More rightwingnut noisemaking bullshit. To paraphrase Trump, they whine & whine & whine until they get their way

        • Yeah. They're busily fixing that "problem" as we speak.

    • In the last few months, The Daily Mash and The Rochdale Herald have had depressingly accurate news. The Guardian actually ran an article about a month ago that had exactly the same headline as The Daily Mash a year earlier (Unelectable Man Wins Election).

      I'm using a news app that pulls in things from a load of sources and it's often difficult to tell the real news from the parody these days.

  • Wonder what percentage consulted real news outlets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:36PM (#53301117)
    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.

    • Re: Wonder what percentage consulted real news out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:48PM (#53301217)
      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Nostalgia4Infinity ( 3752305 )
      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... [observer.com]

  • No alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:41PM (#53301157) Journal

    Here's why:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_... [pewresearch.org]

    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.

    • Re:No alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:47PM (#53301203)
      Or maybe America's idea of centre is fucked up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

        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?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          What are centrist views then? What's an example?

          ACA is based on a paper from a right-wing think thank, so why is it "left"? Single payer would be "left" I agree, but ACA looks centrist, or even slightly right to me.

          Gun control? Most of the population agree to the limits and background checks proposed by Hillary. Wouldn't that make them "centrist"?

          And why is climate change "left"? The vast majority of the world doesn't believe it's a hoax. The right are very lonely on the hoax position.

          • 'Left' and 'Right' are useless terms, don't use them. The terms were invented because of how people sat during the French Revolution. Show a little thought and use a term that more accurately matches the group you are trying to describe.

            • 'Left' and 'Right' are useless terms, don't use them.

              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 embrac

              • And part of that is practicality. Relying on the police works better in the city, while having guns for self-defense makes more sense in the countryside. Cities are much more mixed places, so people have to get along with more different people. Churches and donations work far better for the poor when communities are small and homogenous.

              • But there is a strong pattern in the US of "rural" culture versus "urban" culture

                Then say urban/rural. That is both more descriptive and doesn't derive from archaic French politics.

          • I don't measure via "left vs right" which is purely subjective and relativistic.

            I have said that I am so far to the right, that I am coming up on your left.

            Personally, I measure things in the form of Liberty. If you are arguing against me, you're arguing against Liberty. Which is fine, if tyranny is what you're really fighting for. Here is my view in a nutshell.

            All humans have innate value, and their rights stem from that innate (Endowed by their Creator) value. These rights should apply to everyone equally

            • I actually agree with a lot of this.

              Equality of outcome is a really bad idea. Equality of opportunity is easier to approach and much more useful. I'd like to see everyone have a good chance to succeed. What they do with that chance is up to them. In order to approach equality of opportunity, we have to supply people with things. A child who grows up with malnutrition, bad education, and treatable medical conditions which aren't treated, has very little opportunity, and is being denied basic human ri

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's not really a socialist/libertarian divide any more, it's more a bigot/tolerant divide.

          • Calling people bigots is probably the weakest form of debate. It basically says "I can't argue on the merits, so I am going to call you names"

            I am sure that works in your circles, but in mine, there are plenty of voices that do not conform to your viewpoint. It is funny how a black man is called a Nazi and Clansman by people like you. Which really shows who is the bigot.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              You will note that when I do describe someone as a bigot, I justify it with further comment. Using a single word as evidence of a weak debate while ignoring everything else said is probably the weakest form of debate.

          • This opinion piece [slatestarcodex.com] might be interesting to you. It's not nearly so clear-cut.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              The problem is that if you say continually pointing out racism is bad for you, then all the other side has to do is continually be racist and it appears legitimate because no-one calls them on it.

              • I'd say the statement isn't so much "continually pointing out racism is bad for you" as much as it is "continually pointing out perceived racism, over-generalizing and exaggerating it, and focusing on that to the exclusion of other, more legitimate criticisms is bad for you". Trump has said bigoted things about Muslims, no doubt, but he hasn't said anything against Hispanics. What he said was about illegal immigrants from Mexico; still a bigoted and untrue statement, but not racist. And he has praised legal

          • I'd say it's both. They tend to coincide, with tolerant people tending socialist and bigots tending libertarian, but, for example, a classic libertarian is tolerant libertarian.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        Maybe America's idea of center should be represented more in American media?

      • America's idea of center is largely in line with worldwide ideas, just not EU ideas. But the EU seems to think it's the part of the world that counts, for some reason.
    • For definitions of "right" which actually mean "frames reality in ways that don't challenge my existing preconceptions".
    • Most media is Centrist. The outlets not targeting a specific audience, like Fox News and the Huntington Post, have nothing to gain by straying far from the center. The "under siege" mentality that has permeated the Conservative camp has lead to a "you are with us or against us" mentality and anything and anyone that even dares question their orthodoxy is immediately discredited as "Liberal Media". During the Primeries Terd Cruize even accused Fox News of making "Liberal Media attacks against him" when one o
    • 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      No, the MSM is, other than Fox News (which, having the lion's share of ratings is by definition VERY mainstream) fairly objective in their reporting.
      Claims otherwise are examples of projection from Fox fans. No MSNBC is not included in the MSM; they are small potatoes compared to the big 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS/NPR, and CNN (I'd include HLN, but ever since they were sold off, does anyone even watch them anymore???)

      and PBS/NPR have probably the best quality reporting and most carefully protected objectivi

    • Here's why: http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_... [pewresearch.org]

      This chart doesn't show bias by the news outlets, it shows bias of the audience. Saying the news outlet is biased biased on its audience's bias is a fallacy. [wikipedia.org]

  • Breitbart (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:42PM (#53301161)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Breitbart actively fakes news. Not just reporting things without properly checking them out first, they go out of their way to manufacture fake stores. For example, the Sherrod and ACORN videos, both of which were carefully edited to give a misleading version of events. In both cases Breitbart has to pay out large sums of money.

  • And Slashdot posts the most stories about Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gussington ( 4512999 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @07:43PM (#53301175)
    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....

  • 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 gov

  • 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 rea

  • The major media outlets went all into the tank for Hillary [battleswarmblog.com]. The New York Times abandoned even a pretense of objectivity [nypost.com] to editorialize against Trump on their front page. Wikileaks proved that CNN [zerohedge.com] and the Washington Post [theconserv...ehouse.com] (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 spen

    • Your news filter is out of calibration. None of those articles actually say what you claim (apart from your own blog).

    • Ok, which of the new articles (not editorials) in the NY Times coverage of the electer were in the tank for Hillary?

      Oh, what's that? You can't actually provide specifics or details or anything aside from the hot air spewing out of your mouth.

      Well, I guess that makes you just a shill for our new Racist Overlord, Donald Trump.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hulfs ( 588819 )

      If the major media outlets were in the tank for Clinton then they wouldn't have spent so much time on lead stories about her emails, rehashing the scandal over and over and over again constantly. They wouldn't have spent hours talking about her feinting spell, they wouldn't have spent time on the Clinton Foundation...and yet they did.

  • 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.

  • ...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.

  • 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.

  • 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 expe

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close