Can it be “fake news” if you see it right before your eyes? (Apparently, yes.)

[A meditation on the WaPo article below]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary really did lose the election, despite the wealth of evidence that Trump "won" through rampant vote suppression and computerized election fraud in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

And let's assume that Hillary's "defeat" WAS largely due to the stories of her poor health, despite the many other reasons many voters had for not wanting her as president.

Even if both those things are true, how was her poor health "fake news"? Was it "fake" because her campaign, and the corporate press, denied it? The fact is that we SAW her sidelined several times by coughing fits, SAW her keel over on 9/11, and, since then, have SEEN her too debilitated to make it down those stairs in India. 

In short, she clearly looked unwell. Why were we supposed to think she didn't? And how was it "fake news" to point it out? 

Yes, there were some videos of sketchy diagnosis, by commentators with no medical expertise, or who had not examined her. While those videos were arguably "fake," in that the "experts" featured in them were not really experts, or just guessing, the symptoms that they analyzed so knowingly were REAL enough to justify suspicions that the woman wasn't well.

So it is with Trump, whose symptoms—grandiosity, irrationality, malignant narcissism, incoherence—are quite clear to everyone, and so it's not "fake news" to note them, even if they too have been knowingly analyzed by "experts" who have not examined him..

In other words, we have the right to trust what we can see with our own eyes, even if it's spun by propagandists.


Scroll down to the bolded section.

A new study suggests fake news might have won Donald Trump the 2016 election

By Aaron Blake April 3 at 8:58 AM


President Trump has said repeatedly that Russian interference didn’t matter in the 2016 presidential campaign, and he has suggested — wrongly — that the intelligence and law enforcement communities have said the same. His overriding fear seems to be that Russian interference and the “fake news” it promoted would undermine the legitimacy of his election win.

Trump won’t like this new study one bit.

The study from researchers at Ohio State University finds that fake news probably played a significant role in depressing Hillary Clinton’s support on Election Day. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed but which may be the first look at how fake news affected voter choices, suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama’s 2012 supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in fake news stories.

Richard Gunther, Paul A. Beck and Erik C. Nisbet, the study’s authors, inserted three popular fake news stories from the 2016 campaign into a 281-question YouGov survey given to a sample that included 585 Obama supporters — 23 percent of  whom didn’t vote for Clinton, either by abstaining or picking another candidate (10 percent voted Trump, which is in line with other estimates).

Here are the false stories, along with the percentages of Obama supporters who believed they were at least “probably” true (in parenthesis):

  1. Clinton was in “very poor health due to a serious illness” (12 percent)
  2. Pope Francis endorsed Trump (8 percent)
  3. Clinton approved weapons sales to Islamic jihadists, “including ISIS” (20 percent)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.