Here's the study since the article didn't link directly to it: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586
The definition of "fake news" is a list of 21 conservative web sites chosen by BuzzFeed. For some reason, BuzzFeed wasn't in that list.
Unsurprisingly, by that definition, fake news is primarily spread by conservatives! Chart C shows that as the strongest result by far. Chart B, going by age, is a weaker result. Well yes, it seems that conservatives live longer (living less dangerously?) or that people turn conservative as they age. It is well-known that older people lean conservative.
This study is, itself, impressively fake, just like BuzzFeed.
It doesnt pay well enough, so they also have the clickbait stuff
Mind sending a few links my way?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/12/20...
It's not even plausible. The man is a germophobe. He had to overcome a handshake aversion (Where has your hand been today? Eeeew...) to even run for office.
It was trivial for the people in power to brief presidents or start a government investigation, with or without merit, and this leads the court to determine public interest. It's getting to be circular logic here, with merit coming from merit.
The pee tape may or may not be real, almost any intelligence dossier like that is going to contain information across multiple sources some of which may not be correct. This does not invalidate the document as a whole, especially because again, we've seen many claims within it bear fruit over the past few years.
This leads me to the conclusion that you are either 1) uninterested in the facts 2) making your arguments in bad faith or 3) all of the above
In any case, arguing with you will not bring further truth out. Enjoy your day
The fact that the dossier is notable (in the public interest to publish) does not mean that the dossier is correct. The court only ruled that the dossier was notable. The fact that presidents were briefed means that the dossier is notable, not that it is correct. The bit about people telling lies... well that is an ad hominem that also doesn't help to satisfy the burden of proof, plus if that were a valid argument then it could be applied to the source of the dossier.
As a robustness check, we constructed alternate measures using a list curated by Allcott and Gentzkow (2), who combined multiple sources across the political spectrum (including some used by Silverman) to generate a list of fake news stories specifically debunked by fact-checking organizations.
>>>
We took this list and removed all domains classified as “hard news” via the supervised learning technique used by Bakshy et al. (23) to focus specifically on fake news domains rather than the more contested category of “hyperpartisan” sites (such as Breitbart).
>>>
> that conservatives live longer (living less dangerously?)
or have more money to spend on healthier living (high quality food, high quality entertainment, high quality housing, plus medicine, etc)