re: New study suggests Trump's cries of "fake news" are backfiring

These are the same reddit retards that have assured us Trump wouldn't last through 2017

THE RESEARCH SHOWS IT!

quote:

---

r/science

---

Sounds like some bull fricking shite.

I ain't gonna lie....I'm starting to seriously wonder if this really is a clown world. I am.....questioning my sanity.

It's just that I honestly didn't think it possible for media personalities to go before a national audience, international even, on a nightly basis, and be as dishonest as they are. An unthinkable level of dishonesty. And if it's not that, then it's real lunacy....some sort of frightening mental infirmity.

I only read the quoted portions presented in the OP

But I notice that the emphasis of the study was ob 'trends' - which means to me that the actual 'conslucions' would equally apply to a situation where NONE of the subjects believed CNN to begin with, so they could not have been "more leery' of CNN's truthfulness after reading the tweets.

And it it was conducted on a college campus it is 90% sure to be using seriously under-informed know-nothings to begin with - especially if they were 'volunteers' with a stick up their asses.

On the basis of what is in the OP - this is actually funny.

quote:

---

In the second study, 1,395 participants read either an NPR news story about a 13-year-old victim of Hurricane Maria, an NPR fact sheet about the hurricane’s devastation, or (in the control condition) an excerpt from “To Build a Fire” by Jack London. They were then surveyed regarding their attitude toward Hurricane Maria victims, the author’s credibility, intentions to read more news stories, and other factors.

Prior to reading the content, some of the participants were exposed to 30 actual tweets from Trump that disparaged journalism or news organizations, such as “I will represent our country well and fight for its interests! Fake News Media will never cover me accurately but who cares! We will #MAGA!”

---

So what we have here is Fake Science "studying" Fake News.

The authoring genius of this "study" had readers look over an NPR news story about a 13-year-old victim of Hurricane Maria which ironically may be completely factual, or an NPR fact sheet with no coincident verification, or an excerpt from “To Build a Fire” by Jack London? Participants then were asked to read a series random tweets by Trump critical of unrelated news stories, and evaluate psych impact? Really?

Perhaps Dr. Tamul suffers some sort of mental disability and this "study" is the best he can do. But for folks who don't, there is the obvious realization Trump's tweets do not occur in a vacuum.

E.g.,
(1) The press reports "many empty seats at Trump campaign event," implying waning Trump popularity.
(2) In response Trump tweets, "Fake News!"

If only given those two tidbits of information, the author's study audience might exhibit "no evidence for a relationship between simple exposure to the fake news tweet and perceptions of the story" as it did in the first "study". (though at least in the example above, the comparison would actually match a tweet with the "fake news" story it criticized)

However in the real world, as the media intimates lack of Trump support, the public sees simultaneous pictures of support levels at that same rally which appear historic. The public views images and videos of thousands of supporters unable to enter the venue due to fire code limitations. It witnesses those supporters braving the elements to watch the rally outside. That is what brings home the fact that our news is fake. Trump's tweets simply highlight it.