Stanford Study: Fake News Favored Hillary

Elder Patriot – Everything about Hillary Clinton has been a sham from her claim that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to her claim that Fake News cost her the election.

We have long contended that she lost the election because she was the worst candidate in political history and we dedicated ourselves to exposing the truth about that evil witch.

In return for our efforts Clinton and her $3 Billion media machine labeled us Fake News.  The Washington Post conspired with PropOrNot to claim that we were spewing Russian propaganda.  The “dedicated” investigators working at PropOrNot ceased reporting in March of this year, shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated. 

That was about the time Hillary finally came to terms with the fact that America had rejected her and that nothing she did was going to result in her becoming president.

Who funded PropOrNot and why did the Washington Post rely on the bogus website to smear us, and other websites who were only interested in getting the truth out about Hillary’s plan to sellout America to her high donor globalist backers?

This wasn’t the only McCarthyesque style attack that we have reason to believe Hillary’s multi-billion dollar campaign funded against us. 

BuzzFeed (the disseminators of the phony Russian Dossier – that Hillary paid as much as $13 million for) and FactBox were two others.

The Fake News label attached to pro American sovereignty, pro American economic growth, pro border control websites – therefore anti Hillary Clinton websites – became the rallying cry for Hillary who even tried smearing the Drudge Report, Fox News, and Breitbart News in what can now be viewed as a desperate attempt to prevent Americans from considering the overwhelming evidence that made the case for ever becoming president.

To be certain Fake News sites do exist, but the Clinton campaign deliberately labeled any news source that opposed her – by citing her history of corruption and her stated policy goals – into the Fake News category.  And the mainstream media accepted her campaign’s talking points and repeated the lies as though they were fact.

Trump also labeled those news outlets that openly opposed his candidacy in the mainstream media as Fake News.  The difference when it came to the 2016 election was Hillary’s opponents in the alternative media had nowhere near the reach that the MSM provided her.

A recently released Stanford study conducted by Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow debunks the Left’s claim that Fake News effectively flipped the election to Trump.

The study used a database that containing 115 pro-Trump fake stories that were shared on Facebook a total of 30 million times versus 41 pro-Clinton fake stories that were shared 7.6 million times.

The problem with their methodology lies in the subjective nature of defining what is true and what qualified as fake.  Did the story about selling uranium to Russia qualify as fake news at that time?  Were stories speculating on the Seth Rich murder considered fake news? 

Regardless, reporting by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post featured a much more disproportionate pro-Clinton bias than pro-Trump stories.  And, the reach of their biased reporting dwarfed the reach of the fake news stories cited by the study’s authors.

And, what about the damning stories about Hillary’s past that these “mainstream” news sources chose to ignore?  Clearly when there is obfuscation involved we are left with nothing to discredit.

Further, the study utilizes Spenkuch and Toniatti’s benchmark to come to the conclusion “that if one fake news article were about as persuasive as one TV campaign ad, the fake news in [their] database would’ve changed vote shares by an amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage share.” 

Interestingly, according to the study the two fake news stories that were most widely believed and circulated were both pro-Clinton.  And, the study ignores the effect of instances where the pro-Clinton media cabal of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post amplified pro-Clinton fake news stories by repeating them as though they were true.

Finally, it will be interesting to see how many stories currently categorized as fake are eventually proven true if Attorney General Jeff Sessions ever gets off his ass and authorizes a legitimate investigation into government corruption and the Clinton’s role in fostering that corruption is ever exposed to the light of day.

The fact is that the majority of Americans, when presented with the truth, are smart enough to recognize it – even when the truth is obscured by a preponderance of non-truths.