Where’s The Evidence That “Fake News” Had Any Impact?

For all the caterwauling from the people who lost the election fair and square, is there any actual hard evidence that fake news had an impact?

(Daily Caller) As 2016 draws to a close, the ongoing debate regarding “fake news’ has pressed forward, but notably absent from the debate is any evidence that “fake news” impacted voters’ decisions on whom to vote for in last month’s election.

Lots and lots of (leftist) media outlets have run story after story about the proliferation of “fake news”, running specials yammering about it. But,

Putting aside the fact that BuzzFeed was accused of using suspect methodology to fit a narrative, and putting aside the fact that Facebook has since discredited the data upon which BuzzFeed relied for the study, the findings still didn’t show that fake news had any impact on the way people voted last November.

Vanity Fair ran a piece titled, “Did Russian Agents Influence The Election With Fake News?” late last month. But that article was based on a Washington Post article that relied on since-debunked experts. That article now includes a length editor’s note saying the Post “does not itself vouch for the validity” of the data upon which its article was built. Even before the Post walked back the article, the piece did not provide any evidence that fake news changed the outcome of the election.

The Guardian’s Hannah Jane Parkinson wrote a piece titled, “Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election.” But Parkinson offered no hard facts to back up her claim other than noting that Facebook helped two million people register to vote.

Essentially, it’s just more Blamestorming from the people who nominated a horrible candidate. No need to reiterate just how bad she was or how bad her campaign was. Just remember, this was a candidate who fainted on video on 9/11 for all to see and had to be thrown into a van like a side of beef. Think that didn’t make an impact? This is a candidate who blew off actually traveling through swing states and talking to people, and they rewarded her by voting Trump, who did reach out and campaign in those places.

As originally reported by TheDC, the data actually shows that “fake news” struggles to actually reach — much less convince — any kind of audience.

So, where’s the evidence? Much like global warming and so many other things, Leftists do not have it. Just feelings.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Where’s The Evidence That “Fake News” Had Any Impact?”

  1. acethepug says:

    The “evidence” is that Hillary lost.

    Listen to Obama bleat on about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh — in essence saying that if anyone is allowed to counter his lies, those lies fail.

    ONE network, Fox, doesn’t kiss his bony behind, and all he does is whine and blame it for his problems. Fox’s viewership doesn’t exceed that of ALL the other Obama-fellating networks combined, and yet THAT is why Hillary and the Left lost, in his mind.

    Barack Obama, in charge of everything, responsible for nothing.

  2. Dana says:

    Fake news? It was real news that Barack Hussein Obama was going to make everything better, but he failed miserably.

Pirate's Cove