Fake News

California Schools May Try to Tackle Fake News

Worries persist that flawed or made-up stories are bad for democracy.

|

PDPics / Pixabay

Ever since the 2016 presidential election, the problem of "fake news" has dominated the national political conversation. Both Republicans and Democrats have railed against what they see as an epidemic of made-up or factually inaccurate stories and the influence they believe those stories have when it comes to swaying public opinion.

Educators, fact checking sites, and even government officials are taking action to fight back against fake news, which some see as threatening democracy. Now, California lawmakers have introduced legislation to require media literacy courses to be taught at the state's middle and high schools, according to the Associated Press.

Some 64 percent of Americans believe that fake news stories are causing a notable amount of confusion, according to Pew Research Center. However, a majority of Americans are somewhat (45 percent) or very (39 percent) confident in their own ability to identify fake news.

Young people often struggle with recognizing non-credible news, a group of Stanford researchers found. They tested middle school, high school, and college-level students on their news literacy skills through a series of tasks. "More than 80% of students believed that the native advertisement, identified by the words 'sponsored content,' was a real news story," the Stanford History Education Group study, which was conducted in early 2016, claims. "Some students even mentioned that it was sponsored content but still believed that it was a news article."

Social media has been blamed for the spread of fake news by many observers. And indeed, Pew Research Center has found that 62 percent of Americans get news on social media, and nearly one in three Americans say they see fake news often online. Of course, as Reason's Jesse Walker has pointed out, the internet also makes it far easier to debunk myths and fact check dubious claims.

For more on the truth about fake news, check out this piece from the March issue by the University of Miami political scientist Joseph E. Uscinski.

NEXT: Pro-Pot Student Group Wins 1A Fight With Meddling School Admins, State GOP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “More than 80% of students believed that the native advertisement, identified by the words ‘sponsored content,’ was a real news story,”

    Of course, this has nothing to do with schools and parents failing to teach basic critical thinking skills.

    1. It’s a failure of government to think for us, is what it is.

    2. no shit. I actually laughed out loud unintentionally as i read that quote.

      My private school had classes partiularly in writing and research papers on how to verify sources and check credibility. We started writing like 2 page research papers back in 7th grade, which was a god send for me since i suck at linguistics. Great at math but suck at linguistics :/

      1. *regularly writing 2 page papers like 2 page paper every 2 weeks in 7th grade. starting in 4th grade we had semester long research papers.

  2. You made a mistake in the title of this piece. It should read: “California Expands Government to Tackle Non-existent Problem in Effort to Bolster Partisans”

    At least that’s how a libertarian publication would address such an effort. Wait, what website am I on?

    1. Are we actually giving an intern shit for not being openly opinionated enough?

      1. I didn’t realize she was an intern.

        Are you actually questioning whether or not an article in Reason should have a bias in its story?

        1. Are you actually questioning whether or not an article in Reason should have a bias in its story?

          Do libertarian-minded people need a blatantly biased headline and/or article in order to explicitly educate us on why fake news legislation is not a good idea?

          Also, the intern always provides witty and topical alt text, so get your priorities in order.

          1. Considering the headline is all that anyone reads, yes.

            1. And thus the proliferation of “headlines that have little or nothing to do with the actual pieces” that I’ve been seeing a lot of recently.

          2. There is a breed of commentator who if every line is not explicitly confirming their bias, even when completely uncalled for.

            1. And then there is a breed of commentator that makes no sense, but keeps talking. I’m assuming you’re a hit at parties.

        2. Lindsay Marchello is the spring 2017 Burton C. Gray Memorial Intern.

          Of course, nobody here reads the articles. 🙂

        3. Leave the interns out of it. They are getting beaten, sodomized(voluntarily I’m told), over-worked and brainwashed by the “editors”. They deserve our praise and pity.

          1. I forgot: made to smoke weed with messicans too.

    2. Thank God we have you to police the headlines for us.

  3. What this really is all about is that the ‘journalists’ have finally lost control of the spin, and they can’t stand it.

  4. Will Walter Duranty’s reporting on the USSR and Hillary’s story of landing in Bosnia under gunfire make the curriculum?

    1. Fake News obviously didn’t exist until the 2016 election, so no.

    2. How about Walter Conkite declaring the Tet offensiveness an historic Viet Cong victory. Talk about fake news.

    3. There’s a great book, The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia, which is basically about Americans who swallowed Red Decade propaganda about how the grass was greener on the Soviet side, and ultimately ended up getting themselves and their families executed, in the gulag, or otherwise disappeared from the face of the earth. A lot of it details the bien-pensants like Duranty and other Top Men with prestigious educations from the very best universities, who very frequently knew the truth, but decided to lie about the supposed paradise and moral superiority of the USSR, because greater good, etc., etc., etc.

      It’s like The Gulag Archipelago but hitting closer to home… especially when it comes to mentioning the lavish cocktail parties. Seriously.

  5. If you really are concerned about “fake news”, maybe you should consider tightening the libel laws and repealing NYT v. Sullivan. If media outlets could no longer hide behind the reckless indifference or actual malice standards in libel suits, I bet they would be more careful about ensuring they printed the truth and not fake news.

    I seem to recall someone proposing that. I forget who.

    1. Probably some witless ape.

      1. I thought it was the boorish president. By your description seems to indicate it was you

        1. Panties in a bunch hun? I was referencing the Kevin Williamson piece about Trump with one of the best headlines ever.

          “Witless Ape Rides Escalator”

          1. I was asking an honest question. I thought you were a ‘witless ape’.

            You seem to be in a bad mood.

    2. What a brilliant idea, John! Then, when some idiotic right-wing website like Breitbart posts ridiculous articles slandering some leftist, then the Soros Empire can sue Breitbart into oblivion!

      1. And if that forces Breitbart to tighten up its editorial standards…

      2. If Breitbart is slandering people, they should be sued. That is the entire point.

        1. Or saying bad things about well connected leftists who can run Breitbart into the ground with empty lawsuit after empty lawsuit running the court fees up until Breitbart folds.

          1. They could do that anyway. The existence of the actual malice standard doesn’t make it any more difficult to file law suits. Opinion is not slander. NYT v. Sullivan was invented by the Supreme Court in 1960. We somehow managed to have a very vibrant political press and free speech before it.

          2. Which is why abuse of process is also a tort and a viable counterclaim, although the legislatures of numerous jurisdictions always try and cut the legs out of it.

        2. Do you not realize what “tightening up the libel laws” would really mean in practice?

          First, the press, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, constitutes not just corporate media organizations. It includes anyone with an Internet connection. So the first person who posted some lurid story about Bill Clinton’s rapes or Obama’s secret Kenyan Muslim past or Donald Trump’s sexual assaults or Hillary Clinton’s secret lesbian lifestyle would find themselves sued into oblivion. Along with their ISP, web hosting platform, and anyone within an arm’s length of that individual. Which would mean, of course, that places like Reason and anyone else would shut down their comments sections, or at least heavily censor them, so as to avoid legal jeopardy. It would have a hugely chilling effect on the free expression of ideas.

          And given that you believe the Left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the media, you’d basically be handing a weapon to be used BY them AGAINST you.

          1. Do you not realize what “tightening up the libel laws” would really mean in practice?

            Yes I do. It was called 1959. Just shut the fuck up. Seriously, you don’t know anything about this subject and you are too stupid and bullheaded to learn. Go away and let the adults talk. And while you are away, ask yourself how we managed to have a free press before NYT v. Sullivan if it is so crucial.

            I used to think you were Cytoxic skulking back. But even he wasn’t this dense.

            1. I think it’s him still, just in the puberty stage. His voice is cracking right now as he asks mom for another sandwich.

            2. Fuck you, John. Did you even pretend to address my questions? No. Just insult me and dodge the questions entirely.

              I would also note that 1959 was also before the modern Internet. You would be putting corporatized media back in control as the gatekeepers of information, as ISPs and web hosting platforms and blogs like this one would cease to allow just random unvetted comments from random people which might land them in legal jeopardy from potentially libelous statements by anonymous commenters. That sort of thing already happened here with Judge Preet. Imagine that happening but not instigated by a judge, but by every person with money and an axe to grind, enabled by the powers that YOU would grant them.

              Your hatred of the corporate media would end up destroying the free expression that the Internet enables.

              1. . You would be putting corporatized media back in control as the gatekeepers of information, as ISPs and web hosting platforms and blogs like this one would cease to allow just random unvetted comments from random people which might land them in legal jeopardy from potentially libelous statements by anonymous commenters.

                Hey dumb ass, ISPs are not libel for libelous content placed on their servers. That has been the law since the early 00s.

                Stop embarrassing yourself. And stop sitting on the threads with your ignorance. It would be one thing if you were bright enough to learn. But you clearly aren’t.

                1. Somebody’s gotten under your skin. It seems about all you’ve done recently is call people names and bow to authoritarians. If I were guessing for money, I’d say you’re no more a libertarian than Trump hisself, but when all you had for targets was Obama and Hillary, it was easy to wax poetic about liberty and individual rights. Then your man comes along and wins by surprise, suddenly the cloak comes off, and bingo! another authoritarian.

                  Fuck off, slaver.

                  1. Fuck off moron. Do you have anything to say about the subject at hand? Do you even know what we are talking about?

                    I have no patience for stupidity. None. Take it elsewhere.

                    1. You apparently have enough patience to call people names in comments. Anyway, I’d rather a slaver thought I was a moron than a moron thought I was a slaver.

                      Fuck off slaver.

            3. Is Cytotoxic the Trudeau voting Canadian who thinks he should have an option about US immigration policy?

  6. Some 64 percent of Americans believe that fake news stories are causing a notable amount of confusion, according to Pew Research Center.

    A number entirely generated by the self-anointed “real news” media.

    1. Schools will instead make sure the kids understand real news like Russian Hacking is the reason we have to live under the tyranny of Trump.

      1. Pft, that’s so last month.

      2. That still really triggers me. “Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator’s original objective.” The only thing the Russians MAY have done is the DNC leaks (the US intellegence report only places 70% confidence in the claim that the man behind the DNC has Russian nationality). Nothing about the DNC leaks involved the modification of hardware or software. No “hacking” was done.

        1. -1 Zero Cool

    2. 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

  7. So we’ve completely dropped tackling the clown epidemic like it’s not even happening?

    1. There are no survivors left to interview.

    2. That is why we are getting all this “fake news”, its to hide the ever expanding clown epidemic.

      People think the zombie apocalypse will be bad, just wait until the clown apocalypse hits us!!!!!!!!!

    3. It better not be fake, I invested thousands in home defense pies, and buckets of paint.

      I can’t just get that money back.

      1. At least you can eat the pie

        1. My wife said the same thing last night, different context though.

  8. Tucker Carlson debated Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez regarding the legislation Gomez introduced. And unsurprisingly, Gomez continually dodged the question as to what is fake news.

    He’s better off just yelling “IT’S OK WHEN WE DO IT.”

    1. *asks about buzzfeed*
      *totally ignores question*

  9. “More than 80% of students believed that the native advertisement, identified by the words ‘sponsored content,’ was a real news story,” the Stanford History Education Group study, which was conducted in early 2016, claims. “Some students even mentioned that it was sponsored content but still believed that it was a news article.”

    Thanks, Betsy DeVos!

    1. How do those hard working GOPers get so much evil done in so little time?

  10. Hey yo, Nazis be in the White House!

    1. Worse, Clowns!!!!

      Though there is still arguments going on whether the present clowns are worse then the previous clowns or the Clowns who did not realize that they needed electoral college votes, not popular votes

  11. White men rape female college students three at a time and get away with it!

    1. Motherfucking legs are grabbed! As are vaginas.

  12. Some of the notable “Fake News” stories of the last 20 years

    The UVA Rape story
    The Duke LaCrosse rape story
    Dan Rather’s George Bush National Guard Memos
    That George Bush Declared “Mission Accomplished” in May of 2003.
    That the Katrina flooding in New Orleans was the result of FEMA intemperance and neglect by George Bush
    That someone in the Bush administration “outed” Valerie Plame.
    That the 2008 banking collapse was caused by deregulation.
    That the government did nothing to create the Housing bubble
    That Mitt Romney was a misogynist
    That Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her House
    That John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist

    Yeah, I would say we have a fake news problem alright.

    1. That someone in the Bush administration “outed” Valerie Plame.

      Richard Armitage wasn’t a member of the Bush administration?

      Did you forget about Obama being Kenyan-born?

      1. Plame was a soccer mom in Virginia. She had not worked in the field in years. So she wasn’t outed.

        And what newspaper ever reported that Obama was born in Kenya as anything but a lie and a kook conspiracy theory? None.

        1. It’s only news if it’s printed in a news paper.

          1. Name one legitimate media outlet of any kind that reported Obama being born in Kenya as fact and not nut conspiracy theory?

            The stories on this list were all published by major networks and or national newspapers not some reddit thread.

              1. Did infowars ever go birther? I am not sure they did to be honest.

            1. Earth to John: Freedom of the press applies not just to credentialed corporatized media organizations

              If you really wanted to “tighten up” the libel laws, then your typical nutter who makes blog posts about how Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim will find himself in legal jeopardy, too, not just the NY Times

              1. No he wouldn’t. Expressing an opinion is not libel. Stating an opinion about a disputed fact, even one that is untrue is not the same thing as saying “this is true”. Your hypothetical blogger would have to be, well about as dumb as you are, to be subjected to any legal liability.

                1. “Stating an opinion about a disputed fact”

                  Who decides what is a “disputed fact”? In your world, if I say “Obama supports terrorists because he won’t stop the terrorist refugees from coming here and because he’s a secret Kenyan Muslim himself”, how is that not libel in your view?

                  1. “I believe Ted Cruise’s father helped killed Kennedy” is not slander. It is a statement of my belief not a statement of fact.

                    Its really that fucking simple you half wit.

                    1. Oh but that’s not what the National Enquirer did though. They had “photos” and everything!

                    2. Actually, if you pay attention to the Enqiurer’s legal history you’ll find some interesting cases. The outcome of their loss required them to change how they practice their business. The court held, among other things, that the actual malice standard didn’t apply to the Enquirer because they were not in the news business.

            2. The people clamoring about fake news are pointing to illegitimate websites that they claim people believe in anyway. I’m very skeptical that such websites have much impact, and I absolutely agree that there are stories that are false or misleading publicized by more mainstream media outlets. But at least try address the actual arguments of the people who are worried about fake news.

              1. Lynchpin,

                The point is that the people claiming to be so concerned about “fake news” are not at all concerned about lies that are repeated as truth by the major media and believed by a lot more people than fake websites. So, their concern about fake news is phony bullshit and their desire to stop it just an excuse to control their opponent’s free speech.

                1. I don’t disagree with anything you said, John, but I don’t find tu quoque to be a very convincing. And that seems to be, like, 90%** of what’s thrown around these days.

                  ** This number may constitute fake news.

            3. John, are you actually trying to determine what constitutes fake news?

              1. Fake news is false information that is reported by the media. What else could it be? And yeah, there is a whole lot of that going on as my example illustrate.

                1. Incorrect. Fake news is anything and everything you want it to be.

                  It’s like Winston’s mom’s mouth.

                  1. You can define it however you like. But I have the same right. And I choose to define it as false information reported by the media as truth.

                    1. I think the government should come up with an official definition. It’s the only way to know what fake news is.

                    2. I don’t need the government to define words for me. I have the dictionary for that.

          2. Considering that the topic is ‘fake news’, I thought the fact that it is in a NEWSpaper was implied.

            Are you OK?

            1. Actually, as I said above, much of the concern over fake news is directed at websites that intentionally manufacture false stories to generate clicks and ad revenue. It’s not what we usually call news sites. But I guess that’s the point.

              1. It seems as if it is more offensive when so called reputable news source prints false stories. But, whatever confirms your biases. I want you to feel good about yourself.

                1. What biases do you think I have?

        2. Plame was a soccer mom in Virginia. She had not worked in the field in years. So she wasn’t outed.

          Sorry, no. She worked for the CIA. She had non-official cover at times. She was still working for the CIA when her name was published. This was not publicly known. By any reasonable definition of the word, she was outed. That she wasn’t active in the field at the time is beside the point.

          1. Sorry. She was a desk jockey in McClean. She was just another bureaucrat. And she was well known in Washington circles. it was no secret where she worked. Working for the CIA is not the same thing as being a field agent.

            1. Except that she had been a field agent. And people she worked with presumably could have still been in the field. Step back from the partisanship for a second and at least acknowledge what happened.

              1. And the CIA believed her cover had been blown at least twice, neither by Richard Armitage.

              2. Except that she had been a field agent. And people she worked with presumably could have still been in the field.

                She had been but wasn’t anymore. And since she was now married with small children was never gong to be again. And the people she worked with were not outted. So what difference do they make.

                The facts are what they are. If you don’t like them, go live in another universe or something.

                1. “Hey, you remember that American blonde woman? Turns out she was CIA.”

                  “No kidding? Um, do you think anyone else she worked with was CIA?”

                  “That’s stupid and only stupid people who live in a stupid universe would believe that. That’s a fact. If you don’t like it, I don’t know what to tell you.”

                  ^^ This is how John actually thinks.**

                  ** This sentence may constitute fake news.

                  1. Except that nothing like that ever happened Lynchpin. So yes, it is fake news.

          2. John is just spreading more fake news.

            1. And according to his own standard, he would be setting himself up to be sued for libel in his comments here, because he is declaring as statements of fact things that he believes are true about Valerie Plame.

              1. They are true. Truth is a defense to libel you half wit. Libel doesn’t mean “facts I don’t like”.

                Son, did your parents have any children that lived?

                1. It’s probably not your intent Jon, but in my head I’m now reading all of your comments in the voice of Buford T. Justice.

    2. John, you’re confusing truthfulness for truthiness.

      Fake news stories are not truthy. Whether or not they are truthful is completely irrelevant. Truthiness is what’s important and all of those stories rank very highly on the truthiness scale.

      1. Let me add a couple of examples:

        Deranged white guy George Zimmerman killed a nice black kid for no reason.
        Everything about ‘hands up don’t shoot’ and Michael Brown

        See, these are low in truthfulness. But they’re very high in truthiness to all good-thinking people! That’s what’s important and that’s why it’s ok and woke to march around saying ‘hands up don’t shoot’.

        1. The entire Zimmerman Martin thing was one long example of fake news. it is funny as hell the media was dumb enough to start the “fake news” debate and not thing it wouldn’t come around to bite them.

        2. I had a lot of free time around the Zimmerman trial and was able to follow it extremely closely. It was simultaneously depressing and amusing that so many people’s idea of what happened bore absolutely no relation to either the prosecution nor the defense’s side.

          Also, the calls to repeal due process, because it was racist, and stuff.

          And, also again, if I were running a sleazy clickbait trash site and needed a short-term injection of revenue, I’d run a piece stating that Trump has appointed Zimmerman as Neighborhood Watch Czar. Link it on various Reddit communities like r/politics, and bam! Rent paid for a while.

          1. you should do that it would make national news overnight and everyone here would laugh their arses off

      2. Yeah. See Crusty’s post just above. Crusty is all about the truthiness.

    3. I ran across somebody a month ago who was bawling that Rather was unfairly “swiftboated”, heh.

      Also, while the Palin mania seems to have finally died down, it was an unceasing source of amusement regularly coming across smug people, sure in their belief of their own intellectual superiority, who quite honestly thought that Palin had actually said that. It’s really quite remarkable how wide that got spread.

  13. The biggest problem I find is that no one wants to put a pin in a definition for “fake news”. We have some people defining it as news that is factually incorrect, others defining it as sponsored content, and others still as news they disagree with. And, of course, the faction defining it as a mythical boogie man that they can use as an excuse to why their Preferred Tribe failed so spectacularly.

  14. Is it really fake news if it doesn’t reach a lot of people? MSNBC only has viewership in the 500,000 to 600,000 range. Does it matter if so few people see it?

    1. Arizona Bay. Sooner rather than later, please.

      1. -1 Festering neon distraction

    2. If its law it must be a fact isn’t that how it works

  15. Educators, fact checking sites, and even government officials are taking action to fight back against fake news, which some see as threatening democracy.

    LOL, I have a feeling that some news stories are going to be deemed more fake than others. Demonstrably made-up BS like “millions are children are starving in America” will get a pass, somehow.

    1. Because it has a high degree of truthiness. Truthfulness is not important when deciding what news is fake.

    2. or the one that basically stated that every child in Texas was used for child sex trafficking.

  16. Wage Gap- Fake news. Somehow I don’t think that will get in there. Russian ‘Hacking’ of the election – Fake News. College Rape Statistics, Fake News.

    1. Only government can…or government needs to…always fake news.

    2. Don’t forget the “huge rise in domestic violence every Super Bowl Sunday” meme that was reported as fact for decades. I think that one may have finally died, but you can never be sure.

      1. Now it’s sex workers.
        they flock to the city, because apparently the superbowl isn’t on TV.

        1. And people who go to the Super Bowl all want hookers as opposed to people who go to the Olympics or the World Series or any other sporting event. Something about football just makes people want to hire a hooker.

          1. “I can’t believe my team lost! i only spent $2000 bucks on the ticket. God, I’m so angry I just want to go get a hooker! how long till my flight home?”

          2. I think the “eleventy kajillion hookers” thing has been trotted out at the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, too.

    3. Any capitalism caused x bad outcome…always ffake news.

    4. any of the federal reserve’s goals.

    5. Any story saying The Walking Dead is a good show.

  17. It will be amusing to see how they specifically plan to teach the students to recognize “fake news”. Let me guess: it will be something along the lines of “just believe whatever the California state government says is true”.

  18. Some 64 percent of Americans believe that fake news stories are causing a notable amount of confusion, according to Pew Research Center

    speaking of “Fake News”…

    one of the primary culprits imho is this idea that “Citing polls” means “something is real”

    Because Reason is usually quick to note that ‘most people believe gun crime is rising‘ when its not, or that the environment is in the process of perpetual collapse when by almost every measure the environment is less polluted… and so on.

    Simply because a majority of people say on a poll that they feel X about something is not by itself even evidence that said something *exists*, much less that their perception of it reflects something about reality.

    If the media writes lots of stories about “fake news is confusing people”, then subsequently poll people to ask their opinions, you may be unsurprising to discover that many people now believe Fake News Is Confusing People.

    Its a vacuuous cycle of self-reinforcing bullshit.

    1. you may be unsurprising to discover it should be unsurprising that

    2. The polls always appear after endless news cycles repeating what the pollsters want to hear, so yeah, they’re completely meaningless.

      1. Its essentially measuring the echoes of their own reporting, and pretending that constitutes “proof” that their reporting was justified.

        Wasn’t there a poll that said that a majority of democrats believed the “Russian Hacking” actually involved “changing the vote count”?

        (even though the perpetual headlines about “Russian Hacking” were really just about the email-leaks that Wikileaks disclosed, and mostly had no proof of “hacking” anywhere)

        here it is

        Poll Shows Majority (52%) of Democrats Falsely Believe Russia Hacked Election Results

        the question specifies ‘russia tampered with vote-tallies’, so its not like it was some misinterpretation of the question.

        You can get a majority of people to agree with shit that was simply *implied* by reporting, much less actually echo headlines back, which is shooting fish in a barrel

  19. And fake news is suddenly a huge problem because…? Oh, right. A Democrat lost an election.

  20. A friend who teaches middle school got in trouble with some of the parents for showing Al Gores’ Inconvenient Truth movie.

    I told her the right way to show that movie would be as an introduction to critical thinking. The propaganda is so blatant that it ought be easy for kids to see, and a great justification to present to the parents.

    She hasn’t spoken to me since.

    1. Well kids, today we are going to spend two hours learning about logical fallacies.

      That is actually not a bad idea.

  21. Lindsay Marcello is the spring 2017 Burton C. Gray Memorial Intern.

    Not sure what a ‘Memorial Intern’ is, but sounds risky.

    1. Burton was the intern who touched The Jacket

      we don’t talk about Burton. there’s still marks on the walls from where he combusted.

  22. Young people often struggle with recognizing non-credible news, a group of Stanford researchers found.

    They may be identified by their “Bernie 2016” paraphernalia.

  23. From the publication that brought you climate science as reported in the Daily Mail and Judith Curry, noted proponent of the “lizard people” hypothesis.

    Don’t you want a real science reporter reason? Or can’t you find one who wants to write for an outlet that does journalism the backward way (you know everything already, and facts are things you attempt to fit into your fully-formed worldview)?

  24. 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won
    Which news outlets? The Guardian, New York Magazine, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Time, Slate, Vox, Washington Post, and the Associated Press figure prominently in the reporting and distribution of these fake news stories.

  25. 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won
    Which news outlets? The Guardian, New York Magazine, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Time, Slate, Vox, Washington Post, and the Associated Press figure prominently in the reporting and distribution of these fake news stories.

    1. The squirrels don’t like fake news either

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.