Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda

[Dill]

Harvard study tracks how media coverage favored Trump, as Breitbart re-constructed the infamous "bubble" of right wing media news to displace Fox as the center and source of right wing disinformation.  

Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it. The prevalence of such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent “Bowling Green massacre.”

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php




. . . sidelining of Fox News in early 2016 coincided with sustained attacks against it by Breitbart. The top-20 stories in the right-wing media ecology during January included, for example, “Trump Campaign Manager Reveals Fox News Debate Chief Has Daughter Working for Rubio.” More generally, the five most-widely shared stories in which Breitbart refers to Fox are stories aimed to delegitimize Fox as the central arbiter of conservative news, tying it to immigration, terrorism and Muslims, and corruption:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

MFW someone mocks you for calling Huffington Post the "Breitbart of the left" and then posts a study that essentially confirms my assertion.  Thank you my friend!

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: MFW someone mocks you for calling Huffington Post the "Breitbart of the left" and then posts a study that essentially confirms my assertion.  Thank you my friend!

You are aware of my feelings on HuffPo, but I have to share this from the article:

Quote:Notes: In the above clouds, the nodes are sized according to how often they were shared on Twitter (Fig. 1) or Facebook (Fig. 2). The location of nodes is determined by whether two sites were shared by the same Twitter user on the same day, representing the extent to which two sites draw similar audiences. The colors assigned to a site in the map reflect the share of that site’s stories tweeted by users who also retweeted either Clinton or Trump during the election. These colors therefore reflect the attention patterns of audiences, not analysis of content of the sites. Dark blue sites draw attention in ratios of at least 4:1 from Clinton followers; red sites 4:1 Trump followers. Green sites are retweeted more or less equally by followers of each candidate. Light-blue sites draw 3:2 Clinton followers, and pink draw 3:2 Trump followers.

[Belsnickel]

Here is a graphic that is closer to judging by content:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-25-2017, 08:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are aware of my feelings on HuffPo, but I have to share this from the article:

(08-25-2017, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is a graphic that is closer to judging by content:

I'm referring to the inherent bias of their particular coverage.  I have always conceded that the Breitbart comment section is a far uglier place than HuffPo, but HuffPo certainly has its moments in that regard as well.

[Belsnickel]

Here's another graphic from the story that is interesting, and highlights something I often point out when people discuss how much the media was against Trump. This shows that proportionally, the media discussed Clinton's scandals far for than her policies while Trump had more attention on policy than scandals.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm referring to the inherent bias of their particular coverage.  I have always conceded that the Breitbart comment section is a far uglier place than HuffPo, but HuffPo certainly has its moments in that regard as well.

This is true, that may not be the best reflection of their content.

[Millhouse]

(08-25-2017, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm referring to the inherent bias of their particular coverage.  I have always conceded that the Breitbart comment section is a far uglier place than HuffPo, but HuffPo certainly has its moments in that regard as well.

Breitbart's comment section is the epitome of internet aids. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-25-2017, 09:31 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Breitbart's comment section is the epitome of internet aids. 

I grew up with a far more brutal, and offensive, internet then some may be used to.  I've seen far worse.  You are correct that it is far more often than not an ugly place.

[Dill]

(08-25-2017, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: MFW someone mocks you for calling Huffington Post the "Breitbart of the left" and then posts a study that essentially confirms my assertion.  Thank you my friend!

The study confirms "both sides do it"????

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-25-2017, 10:19 PM)Dill Wrote: The study confirms "both sides do it"????

Talking points are the lazy man's weapons.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-25-2017, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is a graphic that is closer to judging by content:

That graphic right there is the main example of why the whole "fake news" and "media vs people" and all that jazz was able to catch so much traction. The top three news groups all leaned left, as do 6 of the top 7.

The disparity allowed such an Us vs Them stance against the media to succeed.

(08-25-2017, 08:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's another graphic from the story that is interesting, and highlights something I often point out when people discuss how much the media was against Trump. This shows that proportionally, the media discussed Clinton's scandals far for than her policies while Trump had more attention on policy than scandals.

I think is where one of Clinton's main flaws in her campaign is shown. (Other than the fatal flaw of neglecting to spend time in a couple states she thought she would auto-win.) It seemed when Trump was talking, he was talking about Hillary's scandals, or his policies (regardless of how well thought out they may or may not be). It felt like Hillary often talked about Trump, and Trump, thinking if she just pointed out that he was Trump enough, no sane country would elect him.

That meant that there really wasn't any policy stances of hers that were well known or polarizing, allowing the voting base to get behind her on it. If you asked a random person what Trump's stance on immigration is, everyone could answer. If you did that with Hillary, could most of them? I feel the same was for a lot of her stances. I really wasn't sure other than her wanting to make a ton of jobs in renewable/solar energy (which is why that was her most covered positive thing). She spent too much time trying to focus on Trump, and let her biggest strength (experience) be overshadowed by not making strong proclamations on what her policies would be, to let people get motivated to vote for her. Leading to a meh turnout.

Trump successfully attacked her while getting his message out (regardless of how he's followed through on it or how much BS some of it was), Clinton didn't.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

Interesting thread.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2017, 11:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graphic right there is the main example of why the whole "fake news" and "media vs people" and all that jazz was able to catch so much traction. The top three news groups all leaned left, as do 6 of the top 7.

The disparity allowed such an Us vs Them stance against the media to succeed.

I actually have to apologize for this misconception on this graphic. I, for some reason, took it as the partisan leaning of the site itself. That graph actually shows the proportion of people that visit based on their political leanings. So those sites don't necessarily lean left based on this graph, but the people that visit them do.

(08-25-2017, 11:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think is where one of Clinton's main flaws in her campaign is shown. (Other than the fatal flaw of neglecting to spend time in a couple states she thought she would auto-win.) It seemed when Trump was talking, he was talking about Hillary's scandals, or his policies (regardless of how well thought out they may or may not be). It felt like Hillary often talked about Trump, and Trump, thinking if she just pointed out that he was Trump enough, no sane country would elect him.

That meant that there really wasn't any policy stances of hers that were well known or polarizing, allowing the voting base to get behind her on it. If you asked a random person what Trump's stance on immigration is, everyone could answer. If you did that with Hillary, could most of them? I feel the same was for a lot of her stances. I really wasn't sure other than her wanting to make a ton of jobs in renewable/solar energy (which is why that was her most covered positive thing). She spent too much time trying to focus on Trump, and let her biggest strength (experience) be overshadowed by not making strong proclamations on what her policies would be, to let people get motivated to vote for her. Leading to a meh turnout.

Trump successfully attacked her while getting his message out (regardless of how he's followed through on it or how much BS some of it was), Clinton didn't.

Interestingly enough, this was also the result of media coverage. Clinton's campaign had white papers on white papers. Her campaign put out a ton of stuff on policy, and she spoke a ton about policy and the issues. But, that's not what the media would cover. You could have a 20 minute stump speech where 17 minutes of it was about the issues and policy, 3 minutes talked about Trump, and the media covered only those 3 minutes. The perception that she focused more on Trump than the issues is one that was created by the media, and then the media pundits have criticized her for it.

[Benton]

(08-25-2017, 11:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graphic right there is the main example of why the whole "fake news" and "media vs people" and all that jazz was able to catch so much traction. The top three news groups all leaned left, as do 6 of the top 7.

The disparity allowed such an Us vs Them stance against the media to succeed.


I think is where one of Clinton's main flaws in her campaign is shown. (Other than the fatal flaw of neglecting to spend time in a couple states she thought she would auto-win.) It seemed when Trump was talking, he was talking about Hillary's scandals, or his policies (regardless of how well thought out they may or may not be). It felt like Hillary often talked about Trump, and Trump, thinking if she just pointed out that he was Trump enough, no sane country would elect him.

That meant that there really wasn't any policy stances of hers that were well known or polarizing, allowing the voting base to get behind her on it. If you asked a random person what Trump's stance on immigration is, everyone could answer. If you did that with Hillary, could most of them? I feel the same was for a lot of her stances. I really wasn't sure other than her wanting to make a ton of jobs in renewable/solar energy (which is why that was her most covered positive thing). She spent too much time trying to focus on Trump, and let her biggest strength (experience) be overshadowed by not making strong proclamations on what her policies would be, to let people get motivated to vote for her. Leading to a meh turnout.

Trump successfully attacked her while getting his message out (regardless of how he's followed through on it or how much BS some of it was), Clinton didn't.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

Interesting thread.

Six of the top seven twitter shares, not users. I doubt the hill has more users than Fox News or NBC news when you're lumping in viewers, too.

I've seen a few polls that backup the thinking that most voters (people who have voted in the last decade or so) rely on print or television as their primary news source. Twitter shares is interesting, but likely holds little relevance.

[Dill]

(08-25-2017, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Talking points are the lazy man's weapons.  

Is "Breitbart of the Left" a talking point?

[Vlad]

(08-26-2017, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, this was also the result of media coverage. Clinton's campaign had white papers on white papers. Her campaign put out a ton of stuff on policy, and she spoke a ton about policy and the issues. But, that's not what the media would cover. You could have a 20 minute stump speech where 17 minutes of it was about the issues and policy, 3 minutes talked about Trump, and the media covered only those 3 minutes. The perception that she focused more on Trump than the issues is one that was created by the media, and then the media pundits have criticized her for it.

Riiight. 

Her only policy was keeping a bottle of hot sauce in her purse at all times.

In what was the post election meltdown even extreme leftists criticized the democrats and Hillary for not focusing more on policy and the issues.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2017, 12:16 PM)Vlad Wrote: Riiight. 

Her only policy was keeping a bottle of hot sauce in her purse at all times.

In what was the post election meltdown even extreme leftists criticized the democrats and Hillary for not focusing more on policy and the issues.

Someone tell me again how sticking to criticizing Trump's "policies" is all anyone should do when the average Trump voter didn't care about any policy statements for anyone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2017, 11:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Is "Breitbart of the Left" a talking point?

No, it's a regular point.

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 12:16 PM)Vlad Wrote: Riiight. 

Her only policy was keeping a bottle of hot sauce in her purse at all times.

In what was the post election meltdown even extreme leftists criticized the democrats and Hillary for not focusing more on policy and the issues.

Your extreme, willful ignorance on this topic is noted.

[Dill]

(08-26-2017, 12:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's a regular point.

Can you explain the difference?