User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

A citation template I like to use.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR

A message for fringe political editors

A message for fringe political editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A message for fringe political editors The short version... If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for fringe editors who push pro-Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories.[1] Those theories allege that there is no Russian interference and/or that the Trump–Russia dossier makes fake allegations not based on serious intelligence gathering. Both theories are examples of Trump's deceptive "fake news" labeling designed to alienate his supporters from reliable news and facts. Don't be surprised when voicing such views is seen as a violation of our rules against advocacy, soapboxing, and talk page abuse; your comments get redacted; and you are viewed as a tendentious editor. To avoid problems, base your own POV and comments on what RS say, IOW, change your mind. That way, instead of being in conflict with non-fringe editors, you will be collaborating with them. Just sayin'... The longer version... If you think that what other editors post is biased/slanted in a direction unfavorable to Trump, there may be a legitimate reason why it appears that way. Maybe they are depending on RS which have that bias and slant. Truth is not centrist. It tends to be to one side or the other, depending on the historical context. Sometimes left-wingers are more right, and at other times right-wingers are. With all-things-Trump, all the evidence and intelligence reports tend to show the Trump administration hiding a whole lot of activities, lying a lot, hiding lots of meetings, and when it's revealed, it often turns out to be illegal and/or shady activities, at times bordering on treasonous. Only the Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research (What are the fringe wingnuts saying?) When doing such research, be very careful, because what they write is written to convince you of false ideas. Will you be able to resist that pernicious influence? Only very well-informed people can live up to the following: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle So there is, after all, a reason why the content added by experienced editors has that "bias" and "slants" that way. It's because that is the slant found in RS. Unreliable sources have a different slant, and we don't blindly cater to such sources here. Editors who constantly resist and complain about that content are revealing that they are imbibers of ideas from unreliable sources, and such editors create problems and often get blocked. Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. References

Personal stash/sandbox

Personal stash/sandbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Main article: Useful idiot Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, says Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow". We have really never seen anything like this. Former acting CIA director Michael Morell says that Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation. I'd prefer another term drawn from the arcana of the Soviet era: polezni durak. That's the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited. That's a pretty harsh term, and Trump supporters will no doubt be offended. But, frankly, it's the most benign interpretation of all this that I can come up with right now. -- General Michael Hayden This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference. Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool". If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now. This is both quotes from their original sources: Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited." Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, 'you must be here to talk about adoption'." MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Finds by MelanieN Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Her finds Is Trump Russia’s Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised? Foreign policy Russia's mark: A dangerous fool for a president "Clinton Watts, a former FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, earlier this year explained: Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory....As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails...What’s more, the Kremlin now has useful idiots in the persons of Fox News hosts, right-wing American bloggers, talk show hosts and Stephen K. Bannon." Putin's Man in the White House? Real Trump Russia Scandal is Not Mere Collusion, U.S. Counterspies Say, Newsweek "... a far more grim consensus is developing in the topmost circles of the U.S. national security establishment: The president has become a pawn of America’s adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin." "James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, virtually called Trump a Putin puppet. The Russian president, Clapper noted, is a former KGB “case officer,” or spy recruiter, who “knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president. That’s the appearance to me.” “POTUS is a [spy] handlers’ dream,” he may be the ultimate unwitting asset of Russia.” “Everyone continues to dance around a clear assessment of what’s going on,” says Glenn Carle,...“My assessment,” he tells Newsweek, “is that Trump is actually working directly for the Russians.” Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here's Why GOP Strategist: Putin looking at Trump as a "useful idiot", Steve Schmidt, MSNBC video References Reliable sources stash BLP about Public figures BLP about Public figures The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. POLICY: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. EMPHASIS ADDED: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. A few things to note about this: There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Wikipedia follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high. Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet: a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability [certain conditions follow]". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies. This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true. If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article". "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Wikipedia or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy. Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important. If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important. Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say. Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject. Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations: BBC Video. Tweeted Aug. 13, 2017. Project Alamo: Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Google, and YouTube worked hand-in-hand with the Trump campaign. Then read this: Why the Trump Machine Is Built to Last Beyond the Election. October 27, 2016 They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal. According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story). That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC) General sources about Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, and the Trump campaign The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. January 28, 2017. The Data That Turned the World Upside Down March 30 2017. Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate July 14, 2017. Trump campaign's digital director agrees to meet with House Intel Committee October 16, 2017. Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of unsuspecting Facebook users March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica pushes back on Facebook's allegations as top Senate Democrat blasts 'Wild West' March 17, 2018. Facebook knew of illicit user profile harvesting for 2 years, never acted March 17, 2018. Facebook suspends Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump campaign March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university March 17, 2018. Staff claim Cambridge Analytica ignored US ban on foreigners working on elections March 17, 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvest more than 50 million Facebook profiles in 2014, but don't call it a data breach March 18, 2018. Mass. AG to investigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Self-described whistleblower suspended by Facebook after Cambridge Analytica reports March 18, 2018. 'I made Steve Bannon's psychological warfare tool': meet the data war whistleblower March 18, 2018. Facebook employs psychologist whose firm sold data to Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Breach leaves Facebook users wondering: how safe is my data? March 18, 2018. What is Cambridge Analytica? The firm at the centre of Facebook's data breach March 18, 2018. Data scandal is huge blow for Facebook – and efforts to study its impact on society March 18, 2018. Democrats call on Cambridge Analytica head to testify again before Congress March 18, 2018. Pressure mounts on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook over data scandal Search: "cambridge analytica" facebook trump (Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2017) Project Alamo References POV forks POV forks The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Main page: Wikipedia:Content forking Point of view (POV) forks In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead). New content sandbox. Needs work. We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. Dossier history split...sandbox Dossier history split...sandbox The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Version 1 == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. === Research sponsored by Republicans === The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." === Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. References Sandbox == History == There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier. === Research funded by conservative website === In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier." === Research funded by Democrats produces dossier === The second phase of research was funded through Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias, as the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign, was acting on their behalf. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) References The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. References Notable false claims This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. For [2] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." When it comes to making untrue statements, Trump is in a class of his own. Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning. Trump's presidency started out with a series of false claims initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When numerous sources accused Spicer of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." From Reporting on Donald Trump donation claims and the Trump Foundation, so attribute: David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." Fact checkers Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". PolitiFact Donald Trump's file Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year". Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office] FactCheck Donald Trump archive Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president. The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims. The Washington Post 100 days of Trump claims. Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we’ve counted 132 false or misleading claims. Fact-checking President Trump’s claims on the Paris climate change deal References

Dossier images

Dossier images
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Starting to collect possible images for use. Needed: Christopher Steele and better image of Manafort. Vladimir Putin meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 2017 Paul Manafort (1976) Michael Cohen (2011) Carter Page (2017) File:2015 RT gala dinner in Moscow, general Flynn next to President Putin.jpg Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Jill Stein (2015) Vladimir Putin (2017)

"Survivor"

Every student at MSD High School who didn't die in the shooting is being referred to as a survivor. Kashuv, specifically (just as the others who have been highlighted in media) is being referred to as a survivor by reliable source after reliable source. We go by WP:RS here, therefore, he is a survivor. Remember, verifiability over truth. Please revert your edit at the Kashuv article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you've changed it back and then back again. How about this: "Shooting survivor, activist" for the heading? He's known as both, but more as a shooting survivor in reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I only changed the heading this time. All other places he is called a survivor are untouched. Every student is called a "survivor", but that has become a moniker, and doesn't signify anything special about him. In the same sources, he is also called a gun rights activist, or something similar. That's what makes him special. It deserves a heading, since that's what the whole section is about. Headings and content should harmonize. Again, he's still called a survivor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. And I agree. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't directly edit the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page

BullRangifer, I noticed you were making edits directly on the WP:GAN page. Please don't. The page is created by a bot, and it gets updated every 20 minutes based on the information it finds on article talk pages, including Talk:Trump–Russia dossier—in particular, the GA nominee templates. All of the edits you made have been undone by the bot, which rebuilt the nomination's entry.

For future reference, if you want to add a note about a co-nominator or the like, the way to do it is to add the text to the GA nominee template on the article's talk page; just type in what you want after the "|note=" field in the template. The bot will pick up on it, and add it to the nomination entry on the WP:GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump, his supporters, and fake news

From: Fake news

A 2018 study at Oxford University found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter":

"On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together."

A 2018 study by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%).

The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check.

Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."

NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

References