RSS: person:matthew gentzkow

person:matthew gentzkow

  • @nidal
    Nidal CC BY
    5
    @wardlittell
    @simplicissimus
    @baroug
    @kassem
    @reka
    5

    Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
    ▻https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf

    In summary, our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump, a persuasion rate equivalent to seeing 36 television campaign ads.

    Nidal CC BY
    • @nidal
      Nidal CC BY

      A new study kills the notion that fake news swung the US election to Trump
      ▻https://qz.com/896758/a-new-study-kills-the-notion-that-fake-news-swung-the-us-election-to-trump

      Though millions of fake news stories were shared on Facebook, people still get most of their news from TV and conventional news websites. “If you follow the public discussion, you might get the impression that a majority of Americans were getting most or a very large share of their news from social media.” Matthew Gentzkow, one of the authors of the study, told Vox. “[O]ur results showed something pretty different.”

      (Note : avec un titre « définitif », « moraliste » et « qui buzze » – “kills it”, “nails it” –, qui pour moi relève justement de la notion de fake news. Il faudrait vraiment réfléchir à cette épidémie des titres définitifs à buzz, et avec une prétention moralisante, et à leur rapport avec la notion de « fake news ».)

      Nidal CC BY
    Écrire un commentaire
  • @fil
    Fil
    3
    @thibnton
    @reka
    @wardlittell
    3

    Stanford study examines fake news and the 2016 presidential election
    ▻http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election

    Fabricated stories favoring Donald Trump were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro-Hillary Clinton shares leading up to the election, according to Stanford economist Matthew Gentzkow. Even so, he and his co-author find that the most widely circulated hoaxes were seen by only a small fraction of Americans.

    (...) On Wednesday, economists Matthew Gentzkow of Stanford and Hunt Allcott of New York University released a study also showing that social media played a much smaller role in the election than some might think.

    “A reader of our study could very reasonably say, based on our set of facts, that it is unlikely that fake news swayed the election,” said Gentzkow, an economics professor and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).

    dans la série des #fake_news

    Fil
    Écrire un commentaire