Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
“This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger”: New York Times staffers band together to protest Tom Cotton’s anti-protest op-ed
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
May 21, 2019, 11:46 a.m.
LINK: comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk  ➚   |   Posted by: Christine Schmidt   |   May 21, 2019

As the U.S. media scrambles to do something different besides Youngstown, Ohio profiles of working class voters, the misinformation machines are alive and well in our neighbors across the pond.

A study of tweets and Facebook posts related to the European parliamentary elections found that misinformation and “junk news” still flourished on Facebook but seemed to be tamped down on Twitter, researchers at the University of Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project found. Anti-immigration and Islamophobic writing especially took off.

Nahema Marchal, Bence Kollanyi, Lisa-Maria Neudert, and Philip N. Howard collected half a million tweets from April 5 to April 20 that used European election-related hashtags. They examined 137,000 of them which contained a URL that went to one of 5,774 unique news sources and determined that less than four percent of the sources were what they call “junk news.”

(Their definition: “Junk news sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information, as well as various forms of propaganda.” We should note that how these researchers define “junk” has been controversial in the past, with relatively mainstream U.S. outlets like the New York Daily News and National Review having been so categorized in past research.)

Junk news was a small share of the total in all of the countries studied except for Poland, where 21 percent of traffic came from junk news — more than the share from mainstream news sources.

On Facebook, “while many more users interact with mainstream content overall, individual junk news stories can still hugely outperform even the best, most important professionally produced stories, drawing as much as four times the volume of shares, likes, and comments,” the researchers found. They used the NewsWhip dashboard to compare the five most popular sources of junk news and the five most popular professional news sources from each language sphere from April 5 to May 5.

“While junk news sites were less prolific publishers than professional news producers, their stories tend to be much more engaging,” the researchers wrote. “Indeed, in five out of the seven languages (English, French, German, Spanish, and Swedish), individual stories from popular junk news outlets received on average between 1.2 to 4 times as many likes, comments, and shares than stories from professional media sources.”

And here are the themes that resonated the most with audiences across the Oxford researchers’ sample:

The full study is available here.

Graphics from the report courtesy of the Oxford Internet Institute.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
“This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger”: New York Times staffers band together to protest Tom Cotton’s anti-protest op-ed
“It has never been my expectation that every piece the New York Times publishes will confirm my personal worldview, but it was also never my expectation The Times would run an op-ed calling for state violence.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s journalists of color are taking a “sick and tired day” after “Buildings Matter, Too” headline
“We’re tired of shouldering the burden of dragging this 200-year-old institution kicking and screaming into a more equitable age.”
VizPol takes a cue from bird-watching apps to help journalists identify unfamiliar political symbols
Built by researchers at Columbia University’s journalism and engineering schools and launched as an invite-only beta this week, VizPol can currently recognize 52 symbols.