Posted on 11/17/2016 7:44:00 PM PST by smokingfrog
Fake election news got more Facebook hits than the top stories from major news outlets during the final three months of the presidential race, BuzzFeed News reported Wednesday.
According to the news outlet's analysis, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.
During the same period, the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook, the analysis found.
BuzzFeed News reported the major outlets had the most activity on Facebook before the race's last three months – but got swamped by fake news as Election Day neared.
According to the analysis:
Of the 20 top-performing false election stories, all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton. Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS, and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump. The biggest mainstream hit in the three months before the election came from the Washington Post, and "Ending the Fed," a site launched just months earlier with no history on Facebook, which got more engagement for a false story during the same period.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS,
That’s not fake news. As SOS, Hillary was supplying weapons to ISIS.
Huffington Post reporting that Hillary had a 98.4% probability of winning the White House?
There isn’t much news out there that isn’t fake. All the garbage delivered by the networks and most cable news outlets is fake.
Fake news: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
Hehe. I almost never click on an approved news site because i know it will be slanted or false. With the fake news sites i will be entertained or actually be informed. Although i steer right out of any site if it starts pop up and blocker ads
Fake news is that widespread, huh? I didn’t realize the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN were still that popular.
One late night talk show before the election kept slipping in as rumor that Trump had raped a 13-year-old girl and I’d heard nothing about it. So I googled and here were a bunch of stories from Huffington Post and other far-left sites just so eager to launch that October Surprise. Well, it turned out the accuser would never show up for her own news conferences and had had past complaints throw out of court.
But this is how this stuff gains traction. For fairness, there was also that Danny Williams story (Clinton’s black son) that I thought had been disproven by DNA back in the late 90s and there he was again with the same story for a new audience. The sludge comes from both directions.
I don’t think she sold weapons directly to isis, but they probably ended up with at least some of them.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/hillary-clinton-state-department-approved-us-weapo/
There seems to be a liberal meme developing , to the effect that all of this fake news caused people to vote for Trump.
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=49779
Fake News list, with wiki leaks included on who was doing what with the Clinton foundation...by James O’Keefe...
It was never proved or disproved. There was no DNA test run comparing. The Dems finally admitted that. But the DOJ does have his DNA results. I'm sure BJ Clinton would refuse to release that information.
The same is true of ALL media.
Bookmark
Use brave browser
Brave.com.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.