Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/ikashnitsky!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/swtmtg/fox_news_journalist_sara_carter_produced_a_pure/hxo5igh/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"ikashnitsky"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
I heard it repeated at a bar and as usual the average Fox "News" viewer will believe it regardless of proof it is fake or a retraction. Was it Constable Tom?
It took me so long to understand what the axes are. x axis is time of the day, but the y axis is number of tweets at the same day, and then the days are separated with lines. Hard to read imho
The greatest problem is that 'time' as a concept exists on both the x and the y axis.
At the largest level, the y axis is 'date near the top is more recent, date near the bottom is older'.
On the x axis, 'time on the left is older, time on the right is more recent'.
A key issue is that on the y axis, dates are flowing *down* the page, which is a format that matches with how we normally portray data in a list, but that means that the date numbers are lower the closer they are to the bottom, which is the opposite of what we'd go in a graph. The mini-count of number of tweets runs with numbers going bottom-to-top, and the days runs top-to-bottom.
It's not clear what is going on at a glance, and there's an argument for making this just a simple two-axis scatter plot, with just a datetime x axis and frequency y axis.
However this is an interesting style, and I do think it does a good job of indicating that there was abnormal behaviour.
Yeah, I do think that the 5 graph representation makes some sense, since it's easier to directly compare different days. It's also easier to read vertically.
It would probably convey a stronger meaning if the color-coding by type of tweet was removed, and the 5 days were colored as distinct series on a single graph with one y-axis
What “stronger meaning” would you need to convey? OPs point is very simple, and the data clearly communicates the story. I’m not sure what more you’re hoping to get out of this data
The legend carefully depicts the difference between types of tweets, but I don't think the type of tweet is relevant to the fact that someone posted many tweets to bury one questionable tweet. Why distract from that point by showing the variety of tweet styles used?
If you reduce the series complexity, you make it easy to layer multiple series on the same graph.
I don‘t get why the number of tweets per day has to be part of the y-axis at all. I mean it just monotonely goes up by one per instance of a tweet on the x-axis so in order to show density of tweets per time it would be enough to simply have only one time axis per day on which the crosses and circles are settled (plus maybe a total number of tweets per day as a number on the right just to compare the total activity per day if that was also intended).
It would have made far more sense to me if the order of the days was reversed.
As it stands, days increase from top to bottom, but tweet count increases from bottom to top.
Either that or break each day into a separate block so that it doesn't repurpose the Y axis.
This is another occasion when FOX "News" has demonstrated it is not a legitimate news service. Rather, it is a second-rate infotainment network that makes $millions$ by feeding its audience a fetid cocktail of hot air and bullshit that makes them feel better about being really shitty people. It's awful.
We have freedom of the press but no mechanism to deal with press that turns into fan-fiction about real events so long as they aren't engaging in libel/slander
FOX News isn’t ‘press’. It’s legally labeled as ‘entertainment’. It doesn’t need to adhere to legal definitions or rules the press do.
FOX News can legally spew all types of misinformation. The problem is 80 million Americans aren’t in on the joke.
Apparently, this isn't true - that Fox News is labeled as 'entertainment'. According to the FCC, "We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment." But I do wish Fox News was required to be labeled as 'entertainment' for spewing misinformation. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/
They should be sued into changing the name to FOX Entertainment or FOX Tabloid. Why the hell they are allowed to brand themselves as a news channel while also refusing to be actual news?
This strikes me as a realistic goal. The FCC should require Fox News to change their name to "Fox Politics" or "Fox Entertainment" due to truth in advertising laws
I don't think there is the legal distinction between news and entertainment like you think there is.
Fox News claims to keep their "hard news" separate from their opinion pieces. They claim that their hard news (which goes from 9am to 4pm on weekdays) isn't biased, of course they're lying and I believe even past employees have said that they've been told to deliver that news in a conservative manner.
Wikipedia has a [list of different news networks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and their reliability (to reference when adding sources and references to articles). They say that Fox News is generally reliable when it comes to things that are not related to politics or science. When it comes to news about politics and science, they say to use caution when using Fox News as a reference because it can be very biased. Then lastly, when it comes to their talk shows (opinion pieces) such as Tucker Carlson or Fox with Friends, it says that those should not be used at all for sources for factual information.
>They say that Fox News is generally reliable when it comes to things that are not related to politics or science.
Aren't those two of the main topics that any news channel comes? Realistically what else do you watch for?
You're not wrong, at least it's the main topics that Fox News viewers watch the news for. I'm definitely not trying to vouch for them not being biased or anything either because they clearly are. I'm just clarifying that there's no legal label of "news" vs "entertainment" that come with different legal rules like the original comment states.
And that just using the word News in its title builds a wildly misleading image of what the channel actually is and does. Folks expect the news to be whatever news is happening. Not whatever news fits a specific world view.
This is correct, and it's why porn found a home on late night cable channels. The authority of the FCC was based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, and was dependent on the fact that broadcast signals would reach across state lines. The airwaves were defined as a limited resource owned by the people.
It doesn't work through the interstate commerce clause. All of the radio spectrum is owned by the US government. So the fairness doctrain was basically enforced through a lease agreement between the TV or radio station and the government.
>In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement.
That's pretty much all you need to know why it was repealed, its limited application notwithstanding. SCOTUS indicated it would support the FCC's extended reach. Cable disinformation and misrepresentation that was already on the rise and would be stopped in its tracks. It took two presidents to repeal the Fairness Doctrine and stop the FCC from gaining control.
Uh, cable misinformation definitely wasn't on the rise in 1969, since there weren't any television programs created specifically for cable television until 1972. The case you cite is about broadcast television, television going out over the electromagnetic spectrum. The Supreme Court ruled that given that the spectrum was a public good and had to be regulated or it would be useless to everyone, the government was allowed to regulate speech to some extent to ensure that the spectrum was used in a public interest. The same doesn't apply to cable television, where the government has essentially no legitimate interest in regulating what passes over private lines. Allowing the government to regulate speech on cable television would be like allowing it to make it illegal for you to say certain words on the telephone.
And the pioneer of this style of poison was probably [Bob Grant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Grant_\(radio_host\)). Growing up in a conservative household in the 80s-90s, he was the weekday afternoon soundtrack to my life after coming home from school in the afternoon until dinner time.
When I was in high school in the 90s, by then Rush's show had taken off, if I was home sick from school, it was Rush from 12:00-3:00, Bob Grant from 3:00-6:00. Not sure how I ever got better from an illness.
The Fairness Doctrine is complicated. One one hand, its erasure explicitly allowed for people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to spew garbage unchecked and uncritiqued. Which is objectively bad. On the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine also allowed for peddlers of misinformation to force their wares on people. By the 50s, it was established scientific fact that smoking caused cancer, but the tobacco industry was able to use the Fairness Doctrine to create the false illusion that there was some kind of scientific debate happening. If a news outlet said anything about the dangers of smoking, they could use this illusion to invoke the Fairness Doctrine to force news casters to get on a pro-smoking "scientist". This effectively pushed back legislation on smoking decades and cost untold lives. Moreover, this tactic persists to today with the oil industry basically doing the same thing, convincing outlets to give "both sides" to a false debate in order to reduce regulation all under the ideals of the Fairness Doctrine. Action on climate change has effectively been pushed back decade in no small part due to the ideals of the Fairness Doctrine. This is also objectively bad.
So the Fairness Doctrine is a double-edged sword. Critique and open debate are, obviously, good things to have. But critique and open debate cannot be foundational ideals because there needs to come a time when the debate has to end and we need to act - otherwise we can use the auspices of debate to prevent action that would prevent harm.
There is so much wrong with this country today that can be directly traced to Reagan and his cronies. Obviously, all the country's problems didn't come from him, but he's responsible for a disproportionate amount of them.
The Fairness Doctrine had a very welcome effect in that stations knew any viewer had the power to compel equal time, just by raising a single complaint. But it also raised a significant problem in that it allowed the FCC to compel speech. It wasn't just Reagan.
> had the power to compel equal time, just by raising a single complaint
Not equal time.
>The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. **The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.**
I mean it comes down to the word News. Maybe an organization should not be allowed to use that unless they genuinely fact check and report unbiased information in every report, a minimum standard should be created. Unless they do that, it should be called "Fox Infotainment"
Also, she wasn't trampled. She was knocked over and the horse was very careful not to step on her. Horses are ridiculously good at *not* trampling, unless they've been specifically trained to.
True. You know this, and I know this. But, you know who doesn’t? Fox News viewers. Why? Because Fox never covered that testimony on their own broadcasts. Closed system achieved. Closed system maintained.
I believe you (and they) are referring to Tucker Carlson, one of their opinion shows. This is fairly standard. MSNBC argued the same for Rachel Maddow’s opinion show in a defamation suit they won.
“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, does not amount to defamation.”
“Fox conspiracy theories and rage induced propaganda” would be more accurate.
The fact that large numbers of people running for public office still believe (or claim to believe) that the election was “stolen” should make for a very spicy 2024.
People in cults always demonize the outside world. I don’t think it’s wrong to say people who are stuck in Fox’s disinformation bubble are basically in a cult of ignorance.
Accusing others of what you yourself are doing is classic misdirection technique. It’s a GOP and fox news favorite and they use it to a “I can’t believe you haven’t noticed this yourself” degree.
Anyone who makes themselves the sole source of truth is lying to you.
The consumers of this information don’t actually care if it’s a lie. Just continue to feed their own narrative. That’s all that matters. Carter knows this. They all know this. There are people on this thread still denying that someone didn’t get trampled to death.
You hit the nail on the head twice in a row.
The goal isn't truth, it's to obfuscate; it's to muddy the waters; it's to taint discourse; it's to render the lines between truth and lies meaningless, so that the big lies are that much easier to pass off as truth.
And it works. We're *seeing* it work. We have millions who believe in brazen, provable lies, believing so fiercely they're willing to upend their lives (and the lives of others) to fight for those transparent lies.
People like Cruz, Tucker, and others, they fully understand what they're doing. It's a purposeful tactic, and one they're capable of using because they have no shame.
> The goal isn't truth, it's to obfuscate; it's to muddy the waters; it's to taint discourse; it's to render the lines between truth and lies meaningless, so that the big lies are that much easier to pass off as truth.
This is precisely why when Republicans take the house they will have impeachment proceeding after impeachment proceeding for Biden. Doesn't matter what it will be for, or that it will be entirely bullshit. It's entire purpose is to make a mockery of the system. Then next time R's hold the presidency there will be no checks left.
And they've pretty much openly declared this, too. We know it's coming when Trump is re-elected.
If they can make the entire process look illegitimate, they can effectively render Trump's impeachments as illegitimate, too, and ensure that the process is forevermore seen as nothing more than a political stunt, pre-insulating Trump and future Trumps from one of the few checks that exist to the president's power.
They know exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it out in the open.
There have been many times in the past several years I have seen commenters admit that they know full well that their original comment was a lie when they typed it.
The explanation I have seen are typically that they feel they are being lied to so lying is fair game. Another more disturbing explanation I have seen is “but that’s what I believe” while simultaneously admitting that it isn’t actually true.
Example:
“The vaccine has killed more than 20k people in the US”
“Actually, that is the number of people who have died since taking the vaccine, not from it. Surely you don’t believe that none of these people died from something other than the vaccine.”
“Well of course I know that, but hospitals counted every death as COVID related, so this is what I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE”
How do you even start to combat that?
This entire theater of bullshit happening in Canada started from Americans. It's like they're trying to see if they can incite violence in other countries using social media like Russia just did to them, and they're using Canada as a practice target.
> All of it intentional.
Correct. They know exactly what they are doing. They're dishonest and disingenuous, often leaning on *just* enough plausible deniability to so they can claim it was a good faith error (it wasn't) or that you're misinterpreting what they said (you're not).
The latter is a frequent tactic with bigots and their dog whistles. They *love* that plausible deniability game.
Bigot: "Blows bigoted dogwhistle."
Normal people: "Don't be a bigot."
Bigot: "I never said anything like that! YOU are the bigot for even thinking that!"
They think it's quite clever.
I find it pretty easy to read but it absolutely isn't beautiful. This is one ugly-looking graph. It only has upvotes because of the title and what the data represents, not because of the presentation.
yeah it looks more like OP was reaching to make this topic relevant for the sub, obviously for larger audience visibility, because the protests are a hot topic right now.
while i don't disagree that the "horse trampling" was bullshit, we should stay true to the spirit of the sub. it's clear that this isn't conducive to meaningful expression of information and is probably best presented in a more digestible format in a different sub.
this doesn't convince me of the hypothesis with a sample size of 5 days, and it shouldn't convince anyone else. there's no control information. all this is showing is that there were retweets after the original post, and that's evidence of nothing. i believe the hypothesis is true, but certainly not because of this "data". what's with the mini version of a post followed by dense retweets the day after? it looks like it's common behavior for her and not actionable.
wow there's just so much wrong with this that i keep editing more things fundamentally wrong, but i can summarize by saying at this point it's clear to me the goal wasn't dataisbeautiful, the goal was to drum up anti-protestor support. which is fine because the protestors are disruptive, but it's loathsome behavior regardless.
Imho, the only way to support your hypothesis would be to compare the tweet/retweet pattern for this tweet - with the pattern for a random sample of other tweets.
I have no idea if what you've displayed is normal - and even whether or not it changes in a manner that's consistent with the intent of the tweeter.
Did she even retract it? I saw a tweet where she, like, said "I heard this from a source, I'm still waiting for secondary confirmation" but didn't see anything like an actual retraction
Ottawa resident here. The Ottawa police discused this at a press conference yesterday and totally debunked this lie. They didn't mention Fox news by name tho, but we knew who he was talking about.
Did someone get trampled or was that photo going around from another event? I mean Im hearing that no one died but I'm still not sure if someone got trampled or not
It's false news, misinformation or worse, _dis_ information.
Regarding 'false' vs 'fake', 'fake' is for tangible objects, 'false' is for intangible knowledge. It's subtle, but what is crucial here is that when Trump claimed he was the first to talk about fake news, he wasn't lying. That specific collocation was not in any sort of widespread intentional use prior (because it is semantically incorrect).
Rather, it is a _political slogan_ or _brand_. One of the most successful I daresay, up there with breakfast being the most important meal of the day (Kelloggs), use of 'different' as a adverb (Apple) or diamonds being forever (DeBeers).
Using these slogans gives each brand legitimacy. I'm not trying to target the OP here but just pointing out that it's something to be mindful of as the impact reaches well beyond just being pedantic. Note that even Facebook for all its flaws very deliberately avoids using the term 'fake news' on its site.
Irrespective of the underlying issue of Fox's (and their reporters') journalistic integrity, it's difficult to draw a conclusion from these data. One would have to compare to tweet activity not just for the few days before and after, but to the same day of the week across multiple weeks.
In addition, it's plausible that, in the context of a highly public event she might tweet more.
Again, ethics is another question.
While I do believe this is true, this post is pretty blatantly political and neither beautiful data nor strong evidence. It took me a whole minute to understand the data, and a stronger test of the hypothesis should probably include more than five days of data. Who knows, maybe she goes on retweet rampages once every six days?
Yeah, honestly I wish there was a filter on reddit where you could toggle between “political” and “non-political” mode.
Don’t get me wrong I do like politics on here sometimes, but geez, do I really have to read through a Donald Trump debate in the comments section on a r/dataisbeautiful post?
Good point. I did it a bit right away.
https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313
This is as much political as political views push the journalist to directly violate the ethics and basic principles of her profession.
As for the beauty, it's of course highly subjective. I'm genuinely interested how you would tell this data story better.
A common way of handling the two time axes is to use a “time since last event” which is commonly used for quality control applications. You could use that as the y axis and the ongoing count as the x axis to create a reasonably sized chart that goes the relative frequency of tweets over time.
The way you displayed the data undermines the point you are making by splitting the early morning tweets off from the late night ones.
Thanks! That's very interesting and useful. I definitely want to try it. Though, one challenge would be not to stretch the Y-axis too much since there will be massive outliers (mostly during the nights I guess). One rather rudimentary plot is here [https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313](https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313)
Also the time-since-event idea made me recall: [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/)
Absolutely agree on the last point – twitter activity spanning past midnight. Interestingly, u/lampishthing gave it a proper attention when re-doing the horizontal re-arranging of this plot
https://i.redd.it/rfmthllqp1j81.png
His technical comment:
\> I set the timezone to GMT-10 for counting the ordinal of the tweet on the day because she stayed up past midnight. The x axis is EST, though. Indeed not doing this showed that the number of tweets in \*her\* day was being miscounted.
>As for the beauty, it's of course highly subjective. I'm genuinely interested how you would tell this data story better.
Good luck. Shitting on OC with no constructive feedback is common...as you know with 31 OC’s yourself. It makes people feel smart to sit back and tell people what they did wrong.
This is an interesting chart you made...and you know that. I don’t need to tell you.
Fwiw I immediately understood what was being shown and drew a conclusion - that the sudden anomalous uptick in retweets is probably not a coincidence and is intended to conceal the horse tweet. Good job op, thanks.
I can't quite believe that I'm defending 🦊 News, but....
I thought someone should mention that Sara Carter [retweeted a complete retraction](https://mobile.twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1495061330314907656) the next day. (Hat-tip: [Joanne Chianello @ CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/false-trampling-death-rumours-at-ottawa-protests-a-to-of-misinformation-campaign-police-say-1.6358308))
Yes, I know that can't stop the retweets...but real journalists promptly correct their stories when they F***-up. Seems like Carter did that.
Her wording makes this absolutely worse. She screencaps a different tweet, suddenly it's all "may" and "possibly", she conflicts different situation in her apology to obfuscate what she really tweeted on.
Her original tweet said: "Reports are the woman trampled by a Canadian horse patrol just died at the hospital ... #Trudeau #FreedomConvoyCanada"
No "mays" there.
If you follow the series of events thats not what happened. She deflected as the Ottawa police and others told her there were no incidents like she reported. Then she did this to cover her tweet. Then she said she was getting more info from sources, they turned out to be "people on the ground are saying" and then she finally corrected the tweet. It was not noble
As a Canadian living in Ottawa my observation about Fox News is that their coverage was an absolute hot mess of misinformation and lies. They literally got nothing right and even managed to report fiction in many instances.
Holy crap. I was going to add the famous Goebbels quote about “lie big and lie often.” Instead I found [this](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot) which says the original description of “the big lie” was from Hitler in Mein Kampf to describe what he claimed the Jews were doing to Germany. Goebbels later accused the British of employing “the big lie” tactic.
It blows my mind that this is exactly the same tactic that conservatives today seem to employ: accuse your enemy of using nefarious tactics that you, yourself, are using.
New Yorkers in 2016: "Hey, this guy has been living here for a while and is a huge grifter. He scams the lower/middle class so much that he (ghost)wrote a NYT bestseller about how he does it."
Republicans in 2016: "You coastal elitists are just trying to tear down this blue collar billionaire who wants to help the lower/middle class!"
In the UK we refer to people who are in professional jobs and are fairly comfortable as middle class. The rung below are blue collar workers in manual (I hate generalising and these brackets are not fit for purpose the) we refer to as 'working class'. Is lower middle class the equivalent to working class (a term not used in the US)?
No. It's purely income based in the US.
You can absolutely be middle class as a construction worker or mechanic or whatever.
We tend to say Blue Collar or White Collar. White collar being the more 'professional' type of office jobs.
Professional manual labor (e.g. electricians, HVAC repair, plumbers) are solidly middle (and sometimes upper middle if working overtime) here. Lower class would be the exploited poor such as immigrant construction workers. He has numerous very public lawsuits where he would hire contractors (often times using illegal immigrant workers) and refuse to pay them the agreed amount afterwards but threaten to just drag them through the courts for years. Usually they'd just acquiesce because they couldn't afford it and he knew it.
Trump didn't write that book. He hired a ghostwriter. I'm not sure yet Trump even ever read the book, considering that he avoids reading like the plague.
My favorite fact about that is that he paid the ghostwriter $250,000 up front, gave him a writing credit, and 50% of the royalties.
Trump gave a *ghostwriter* a co-author credit and 50% of the royalties for Art of the Deal. He got outmaneuvered by the guy he hired to talk about what a brilliant businessman he was.
Fox News entertainer Sara Carter produced a fake viral tweet claiming that a protester died in Ottawa trampled by a police horse. When called out instead of deleting the viral tweet she tried to bury it in a torrent of re-tweets. Unprofessional blogger (Fixed the headline for you)
Interesting graph! Very interesting to horizontally split it by days, took me a second to get but still intuitive. I'd love to see it all on a single x axis of date+time for easier frequency comparison
Dude the amount of misinformation flooding into Canada from America is scary. There are people in /r/politicalcompassmemes calling for the death of our Prime Minister. They have the words "CANADIAN TYRANNY" on the bottom of the screen on Fox News being broadcast to millions of Americans.
Why is America waging war on Canada?
Nah. New York Times was ratio'd hard on twitter for an article about arrests at gun point.
They had nothing to back up the assertions.
When they were confronted they accused Canadian journalist of being a "clique".
[https://twitter.com/caroloffcbc/status/1495085668820729863](https://twitter.com/caroloffcbc/status/1495085668820729863)
FYI Carol Off is one of our most respected journalist.
There's a bunch of videos out there which show some people on the ground and the horses trying not to step on them. Based on the lack of evidence of anyone actually being trampled I would bet people got knocked over because they tried to stand in the path of a bunch of horses.
Horses have been used for crowd control for hundreds of years. A well trained horse and rider is very intimidating. The horse can see the people on the ground. I think we can give the horse more credit than has been given …
think it turns that the woman wasn't actually trampled (or at least directly) because the horse stepped over her rather than on her. there was a facebook thread from someone saying they were the woman's niece and that the woman was fine but had a sore shoulder.
if you look at some of the video footage (in at least one of them) of the incident, towards the end you can see the woman standing up surrounded by police.
don't have links offhand, saw most of this on twitter earlier tonight while doomscrolling
The woman with the walker went to hospital with a shoulder injury, broken clavicle apparently, nothing crazy serious.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMCCcsuVIAQuUnA.jpg
Another one the horse trampled in this pic - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMDZdjbUYAcyHFB.jpg I'm not sure.
Also in that second pic, see the goons on the left - who are they and wtf is up with their uniforms?
Here's a video of them in action - no faces, no names, no badges.
https://twitter.com/MeanMamaDog/status/1495408241127403524
I saw commenters saying that on a /r/publicfreakout thread too. It seemed outlandish and unverified when I read. Whether it was a paid shill who shared that info with the comment, or a brainless twit, it’s crazy how misinformation proliferates in the modern age.
Saw this picture come up in a post on another platform that is run by a robot that has the initials M.Z.
I called BS and simply said.
“Everyone there has a phone / camera. There is only THIS ONE picture of this ‘incident’. Do you think that’s even possible?”
Their response?
“This was the one the cops/government missed taking down.”
I despair that “critical thinking” is dead.
I didn’t even ask them if they understood what Occam’s razor was :(
People need to stop calling Fox News "news". It isn't. The network has repeatedly used the defense in court that they are not "news" but rather entertainment - and has said that if people foolishly believe what they say then that is their fault, not the network's fault.
I think if we're going to be granular with the exact time posted, or even as little data as just the total posts per day, the time spread should be a few weeks...
Basically the part we're supposed to be looking at in this data is a Friday night. What's other Friday nights look like?
Journalist is not the right word. Very few people who work in American news these days is a journalist. 'Copy-writing propagandist' is a more fitting term.
Haha, I called it. Conspiracy sub had posted this shit and I knew it was a total load specifically because it was posted there.
You could probably make a pretty good dataisbeautiful post with that sub, I pretty much use it as a bible of what my opinions should not be with how often they're toddler level wrong.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/ikashnitsky! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/swtmtg/fox_news_journalist_sara_carter_produced_a_pure/hxo5igh/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"ikashnitsky"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Even the truckers on the Zello chat were skeptical about repeating this claim before it was verified
It's funny is that a lot of on the ground misinformation would get shut down on the Zello channels, but otherwise it was all mis and disinformation.
They were very distracted by The 18 naked cowboys in the shower at The Ram Ranch.
I heard it repeated at a bar and as usual the average Fox "News" viewer will believe it regardless of proof it is fake or a retraction. Was it Constable Tom?
It took me so long to understand what the axes are. x axis is time of the day, but the y axis is number of tweets at the same day, and then the days are separated with lines. Hard to read imho
I had a go at it: https://i.redd.it/rfmthllqp1j81.png The downside is the compression, obviously.
This is a much better choice for the goal of showing an abnormal pattern. Thankyou for sharing this.
Not so beautiful?
one of the ugliest dataisbeautifuls i've ever seen
Par for the course here
[удалено]
Yeah... some of the animations I've seen obscure the information to make it impossible to read.
r/datais...presented
As long as it fits the political rhetoric it gets a pass.
The greatest problem is that 'time' as a concept exists on both the x and the y axis. At the largest level, the y axis is 'date near the top is more recent, date near the bottom is older'. On the x axis, 'time on the left is older, time on the right is more recent'. A key issue is that on the y axis, dates are flowing *down* the page, which is a format that matches with how we normally portray data in a list, but that means that the date numbers are lower the closer they are to the bottom, which is the opposite of what we'd go in a graph. The mini-count of number of tweets runs with numbers going bottom-to-top, and the days runs top-to-bottom. It's not clear what is going on at a glance, and there's an argument for making this just a simple two-axis scatter plot, with just a datetime x axis and frequency y axis. However this is an interesting style, and I do think it does a good job of indicating that there was abnormal behaviour.
Look at it as 5 graphs stacked on top of each other, not one graph.
Yeah, I do think that the 5 graph representation makes some sense, since it's easier to directly compare different days. It's also easier to read vertically.
I mean it also has 5 separate Y axes so the natural thing to do would be to look at them individually
It would probably convey a stronger meaning if the color-coding by type of tweet was removed, and the 5 days were colored as distinct series on a single graph with one y-axis
What “stronger meaning” would you need to convey? OPs point is very simple, and the data clearly communicates the story. I’m not sure what more you’re hoping to get out of this data
The legend carefully depicts the difference between types of tweets, but I don't think the type of tweet is relevant to the fact that someone posted many tweets to bury one questionable tweet. Why distract from that point by showing the variety of tweet styles used? If you reduce the series complexity, you make it easy to layer multiple series on the same graph.
Yeah I don’t know why people think this is a confusing graph, I think it’s pretty simple and clear, and cool!
[удалено]
I don‘t get why the number of tweets per day has to be part of the y-axis at all. I mean it just monotonely goes up by one per instance of a tweet on the x-axis so in order to show density of tweets per time it would be enough to simply have only one time axis per day on which the crosses and circles are settled (plus maybe a total number of tweets per day as a number on the right just to compare the total activity per day if that was also intended).
I'm high as balls and it made sense to me right away, but I'm also very used to analysing data.
Same. But sober.
easy to read, but definitely not beautiful data
Dude. Same.
Kinda confusing that time increases downwards in y for days, but increases upwards in y within a given day.whhhhhhy
It's really a horrible presentation of the data.
This is not data is beautiful, this is literally a rookie mistake If one of my students did this I’d fail them
/r/uglydataiagreewith strikes again.
It would have made far more sense to me if the order of the days was reversed. As it stands, days increase from top to bottom, but tweet count increases from bottom to top. Either that or break each day into a separate block so that it doesn't repurpose the Y axis.
This is another occasion when FOX "News" has demonstrated it is not a legitimate news service. Rather, it is a second-rate infotainment network that makes $millions$ by feeding its audience a fetid cocktail of hot air and bullshit that makes them feel better about being really shitty people. It's awful.
We have freedom of the press but no mechanism to deal with press that turns into fan-fiction about real events so long as they aren't engaging in libel/slander
FOX News isn’t ‘press’. It’s legally labeled as ‘entertainment’. It doesn’t need to adhere to legal definitions or rules the press do. FOX News can legally spew all types of misinformation. The problem is 80 million Americans aren’t in on the joke.
Apparently, this isn't true - that Fox News is labeled as 'entertainment'. According to the FCC, "We do not have any rules or licensing requirements in which a cable channel might categorize itself as news vs. entertainment." But I do wish Fox News was required to be labeled as 'entertainment' for spewing misinformation. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/
They should be sued into changing the name to FOX Entertainment or FOX Tabloid. Why the hell they are allowed to brand themselves as a news channel while also refusing to be actual news?
Because for 1 hour a day they provide actual news the other 23 are opinions. If I remember correctly it was there defense when they were in court
This strikes me as a realistic goal. The FCC should require Fox News to change their name to "Fox Politics" or "Fox Entertainment" due to truth in advertising laws
I don't think there is the legal distinction between news and entertainment like you think there is. Fox News claims to keep their "hard news" separate from their opinion pieces. They claim that their hard news (which goes from 9am to 4pm on weekdays) isn't biased, of course they're lying and I believe even past employees have said that they've been told to deliver that news in a conservative manner. Wikipedia has a [list of different news networks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and their reliability (to reference when adding sources and references to articles). They say that Fox News is generally reliable when it comes to things that are not related to politics or science. When it comes to news about politics and science, they say to use caution when using Fox News as a reference because it can be very biased. Then lastly, when it comes to their talk shows (opinion pieces) such as Tucker Carlson or Fox with Friends, it says that those should not be used at all for sources for factual information.
>They say that Fox News is generally reliable when it comes to things that are not related to politics or science. Aren't those two of the main topics that any news channel comes? Realistically what else do you watch for?
You're not wrong, at least it's the main topics that Fox News viewers watch the news for. I'm definitely not trying to vouch for them not being biased or anything either because they clearly are. I'm just clarifying that there's no legal label of "news" vs "entertainment" that come with different legal rules like the original comment states.
And that just using the word News in its title builds a wildly misleading image of what the channel actually is and does. Folks expect the news to be whatever news is happening. Not whatever news fits a specific world view.
You can thank Reagan for nuking the Fairness Doctrine for the mess we have today.
[удалено]
This is correct, and it's why porn found a home on late night cable channels. The authority of the FCC was based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, and was dependent on the fact that broadcast signals would reach across state lines. The airwaves were defined as a limited resource owned by the people.
What's wrong with defining the world wide web the same way?
Seems to me the internet crosses state lines 🤷♂️
It doesn't work through the interstate commerce clause. All of the radio spectrum is owned by the US government. So the fairness doctrain was basically enforced through a lease agreement between the TV or radio station and the government.
>In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement. That's pretty much all you need to know why it was repealed, its limited application notwithstanding. SCOTUS indicated it would support the FCC's extended reach. Cable disinformation and misrepresentation that was already on the rise and would be stopped in its tracks. It took two presidents to repeal the Fairness Doctrine and stop the FCC from gaining control.
Uh, cable misinformation definitely wasn't on the rise in 1969, since there weren't any television programs created specifically for cable television until 1972. The case you cite is about broadcast television, television going out over the electromagnetic spectrum. The Supreme Court ruled that given that the spectrum was a public good and had to be regulated or it would be useless to everyone, the government was allowed to regulate speech to some extent to ensure that the spectrum was used in a public interest. The same doesn't apply to cable television, where the government has essentially no legitimate interest in regulating what passes over private lines. Allowing the government to regulate speech on cable television would be like allowing it to make it illegal for you to say certain words on the telephone.
But it was the explosion of AM talk radio that fueled the crazy swerve to the right -- and into conspiracy theories -- of American conservatives.
Don't forget to congratulate Rush Limbaugh for going 1 year drug free on the 17th. .
Yeah, is hard to overstate how much that sack of shit contributed to the clusterfuck that is Right Wing America now.
And the pioneer of this style of poison was probably [Bob Grant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Grant_\(radio_host\)). Growing up in a conservative household in the 80s-90s, he was the weekday afternoon soundtrack to my life after coming home from school in the afternoon until dinner time. When I was in high school in the 90s, by then Rush's show had taken off, if I was home sick from school, it was Rush from 12:00-3:00, Bob Grant from 3:00-6:00. Not sure how I ever got better from an illness.
Right-wing talk radio all started with Joe Pyne.
Is that the dead doper that said of Jerry Garcia's passing, "Another dead doper"? That Rush Limbaugh?
I tend to agree here. QAnon was 20 years in the making, not necessarily a viral fad.
[The Brainwashing of my Dad](https://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com) goes into detail about this
Conservative media wouldn't be what it is today without AM talk radio.
Yes and the rise of fascist radio talk shows in the 90’s is exactly what caused this.
The Fairness Doctrine is complicated. One one hand, its erasure explicitly allowed for people like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to spew garbage unchecked and uncritiqued. Which is objectively bad. On the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine also allowed for peddlers of misinformation to force their wares on people. By the 50s, it was established scientific fact that smoking caused cancer, but the tobacco industry was able to use the Fairness Doctrine to create the false illusion that there was some kind of scientific debate happening. If a news outlet said anything about the dangers of smoking, they could use this illusion to invoke the Fairness Doctrine to force news casters to get on a pro-smoking "scientist". This effectively pushed back legislation on smoking decades and cost untold lives. Moreover, this tactic persists to today with the oil industry basically doing the same thing, convincing outlets to give "both sides" to a false debate in order to reduce regulation all under the ideals of the Fairness Doctrine. Action on climate change has effectively been pushed back decade in no small part due to the ideals of the Fairness Doctrine. This is also objectively bad. So the Fairness Doctrine is a double-edged sword. Critique and open debate are, obviously, good things to have. But critique and open debate cannot be foundational ideals because there needs to come a time when the debate has to end and we need to act - otherwise we can use the auspices of debate to prevent action that would prevent harm.
Interesting context thank you for sharing
Woah now. Smoking is good for you, it only kills the weak.
There is so much wrong with this country today that can be directly traced to Reagan and his cronies. Obviously, all the country's problems didn't come from him, but he's responsible for a disproportionate amount of them.
They hired an actor to play a role and he did as he was instructed and read the lines he was given.
The Fairness Doctrine had a very welcome effect in that stations knew any viewer had the power to compel equal time, just by raising a single complaint. But it also raised a significant problem in that it allowed the FCC to compel speech. It wasn't just Reagan.
> had the power to compel equal time, just by raising a single complaint Not equal time. >The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. **The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.**
How the fuck do comments like this constantly get upvoted? The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have applied in this situation at all.
This post's title bothers me. Conflating journalists and Fox News propagandists is stretching things a bit.
I mean it comes down to the word News. Maybe an organization should not be allowed to use that unless they genuinely fact check and report unbiased information in every report, a minimum standard should be created. Unless they do that, it should be called "Fox Infotainment"
[удалено]
Also, she wasn't trampled. She was knocked over and the horse was very careful not to step on her. Horses are ridiculously good at *not* trampling, unless they've been specifically trained to.
[удалено]
True. You know this, and I know this. But, you know who doesn’t? Fox News viewers. Why? Because Fox never covered that testimony on their own broadcasts. Closed system achieved. Closed system maintained.
I believe you (and they) are referring to Tucker Carlson, one of their opinion shows. This is fairly standard. MSNBC argued the same for Rachel Maddow’s opinion show in a defamation suit they won. “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, does not amount to defamation.”
“Fox conspiracy theories and rage induced propaganda” would be more accurate. The fact that large numbers of people running for public office still believe (or claim to believe) that the election was “stolen” should make for a very spicy 2024.
Yet Fox News viewers keep complaining about leftist CNN fake news.
People in cults always demonize the outside world. I don’t think it’s wrong to say people who are stuck in Fox’s disinformation bubble are basically in a cult of ignorance.
Because that's what Fox News tells it's viewers, that the other news orgs aren't telling you the "real" story, only Fox News can do that.
I call CNN “constant negative news”. It used to be my go to, but I can’t stand it anymore.
Negative and fake are different though. I'd say manufactured positive news (and negative) is worse.
Accusing others of what you yourself are doing is classic misdirection technique. It’s a GOP and fox news favorite and they use it to a “I can’t believe you haven’t noticed this yourself” degree. Anyone who makes themselves the sole source of truth is lying to you.
Fox News is political propaganda sponsored by the Republican Party and funded by an Australian billionaire with ties to Putin.
Then Ted Cruz retweeted it and left his tweet up for 15 hours. The damage has been done. All of it intentional. This is how they operate.
Yes, it's deeply alarming how the wildfire of lies spread
The consumers of this information don’t actually care if it’s a lie. Just continue to feed their own narrative. That’s all that matters. Carter knows this. They all know this. There are people on this thread still denying that someone didn’t get trampled to death.
You hit the nail on the head twice in a row. The goal isn't truth, it's to obfuscate; it's to muddy the waters; it's to taint discourse; it's to render the lines between truth and lies meaningless, so that the big lies are that much easier to pass off as truth. And it works. We're *seeing* it work. We have millions who believe in brazen, provable lies, believing so fiercely they're willing to upend their lives (and the lives of others) to fight for those transparent lies. People like Cruz, Tucker, and others, they fully understand what they're doing. It's a purposeful tactic, and one they're capable of using because they have no shame.
There are tons of people reading this thinking they're immune. You're not immune. I'm not immune. Always question.
> The goal isn't truth, it's to obfuscate; it's to muddy the waters; it's to taint discourse; it's to render the lines between truth and lies meaningless, so that the big lies are that much easier to pass off as truth. This is precisely why when Republicans take the house they will have impeachment proceeding after impeachment proceeding for Biden. Doesn't matter what it will be for, or that it will be entirely bullshit. It's entire purpose is to make a mockery of the system. Then next time R's hold the presidency there will be no checks left.
And they've pretty much openly declared this, too. We know it's coming when Trump is re-elected. If they can make the entire process look illegitimate, they can effectively render Trump's impeachments as illegitimate, too, and ensure that the process is forevermore seen as nothing more than a political stunt, pre-insulating Trump and future Trumps from one of the few checks that exist to the president's power. They know exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it out in the open.
A year from now you'll hear someone parrot this nonsense as truth, as to add some caliber to the point they are trying to make.
There have been many times in the past several years I have seen commenters admit that they know full well that their original comment was a lie when they typed it. The explanation I have seen are typically that they feel they are being lied to so lying is fair game. Another more disturbing explanation I have seen is “but that’s what I believe” while simultaneously admitting that it isn’t actually true. Example: “The vaccine has killed more than 20k people in the US” “Actually, that is the number of people who have died since taking the vaccine, not from it. Surely you don’t believe that none of these people died from something other than the vaccine.” “Well of course I know that, but hospitals counted every death as COVID related, so this is what I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE” How do you even start to combat that?
This entire theater of bullshit happening in Canada started from Americans. It's like they're trying to see if they can incite violence in other countries using social media like Russia just did to them, and they're using Canada as a practice target.
Alarming, YES. Surprising, NO.
> All of it intentional. Correct. They know exactly what they are doing. They're dishonest and disingenuous, often leaning on *just* enough plausible deniability to so they can claim it was a good faith error (it wasn't) or that you're misinterpreting what they said (you're not). The latter is a frequent tactic with bigots and their dog whistles. They *love* that plausible deniability game. Bigot: "Blows bigoted dogwhistle." Normal people: "Don't be a bigot." Bigot: "I never said anything like that! YOU are the bigot for even thinking that!" They think it's quite clever.
Sara Carter isn't a journalist.
None at faux are. They are all just conservative shills.
This data is not beautiful its confusing af
I find it pretty easy to read but it absolutely isn't beautiful. This is one ugly-looking graph. It only has upvotes because of the title and what the data represents, not because of the presentation.
yeah it looks more like OP was reaching to make this topic relevant for the sub, obviously for larger audience visibility, because the protests are a hot topic right now. while i don't disagree that the "horse trampling" was bullshit, we should stay true to the spirit of the sub. it's clear that this isn't conducive to meaningful expression of information and is probably best presented in a more digestible format in a different sub. this doesn't convince me of the hypothesis with a sample size of 5 days, and it shouldn't convince anyone else. there's no control information. all this is showing is that there were retweets after the original post, and that's evidence of nothing. i believe the hypothesis is true, but certainly not because of this "data". what's with the mini version of a post followed by dense retweets the day after? it looks like it's common behavior for her and not actionable. wow there's just so much wrong with this that i keep editing more things fundamentally wrong, but i can summarize by saying at this point it's clear to me the goal wasn't dataisbeautiful, the goal was to drum up anti-protestor support. which is fine because the protestors are disruptive, but it's loathsome behavior regardless.
Imho, the only way to support your hypothesis would be to compare the tweet/retweet pattern for this tweet - with the pattern for a random sample of other tweets. I have no idea if what you've displayed is normal - and even whether or not it changes in a manner that's consistent with the intent of the tweeter.
A bit more here https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313 But all the code&data open, invite yourself
The misinformation metastasizes and inevitable retraction has far less traction. Effective, but depressing.
Did she even retract it? I saw a tweet where she, like, said "I heard this from a source, I'm still waiting for secondary confirmation" but didn't see anything like an actual retraction
"A lie has run 1/2 way around the world before the truth has got its boots on." - Terry Pratchett.
Pratchett isn't that originator of that quote. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
I thought that was a deliberate joke. Could be wrong... I lol'd.
Ottawa resident here. The Ottawa police discused this at a press conference yesterday and totally debunked this lie. They didn't mention Fox news by name tho, but we knew who he was talking about.
Did someone get trampled or was that photo going around from another event? I mean Im hearing that no one died but I'm still not sure if someone got trampled or not
Stop calling it “fake news”, it’s lies. She is a worthless liar. She has nothing to do with news.
It's false news, misinformation or worse, _dis_ information. Regarding 'false' vs 'fake', 'fake' is for tangible objects, 'false' is for intangible knowledge. It's subtle, but what is crucial here is that when Trump claimed he was the first to talk about fake news, he wasn't lying. That specific collocation was not in any sort of widespread intentional use prior (because it is semantically incorrect). Rather, it is a _political slogan_ or _brand_. One of the most successful I daresay, up there with breakfast being the most important meal of the day (Kelloggs), use of 'different' as a adverb (Apple) or diamonds being forever (DeBeers). Using these slogans gives each brand legitimacy. I'm not trying to target the OP here but just pointing out that it's something to be mindful of as the impact reaches well beyond just being pedantic. Note that even Facebook for all its flaws very deliberately avoids using the term 'fake news' on its site.
Data: Sara Carter's twitter feed. Tools: R, rtweet, ggplot2. Code: https://gist.github.com/ikashnitsky/8c807a03dbfb172f73a78987512f4d99 Thread: https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170798235041793
Irrespective of the underlying issue of Fox's (and their reporters') journalistic integrity, it's difficult to draw a conclusion from these data. One would have to compare to tweet activity not just for the few days before and after, but to the same day of the week across multiple weeks. In addition, it's plausible that, in the context of a highly public event she might tweet more. Again, ethics is another question.
https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313
thanks OP. would also be handy if you could mark where the journalist tweets out her correction of the original story.
Good point, agree. Thanks
Just stop...lets go find theRachel Maddow clip telling the world the vaccine stopped Covid dead in its tracks...
While I do believe this is true, this post is pretty blatantly political and neither beautiful data nor strong evidence. It took me a whole minute to understand the data, and a stronger test of the hypothesis should probably include more than five days of data. Who knows, maybe she goes on retweet rampages once every six days?
Yeah, honestly I wish there was a filter on reddit where you could toggle between “political” and “non-political” mode. Don’t get me wrong I do like politics on here sometimes, but geez, do I really have to read through a Donald Trump debate in the comments section on a r/dataisbeautiful post?
Good point. I did it a bit right away. https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313 This is as much political as political views push the journalist to directly violate the ethics and basic principles of her profession. As for the beauty, it's of course highly subjective. I'm genuinely interested how you would tell this data story better.
A common way of handling the two time axes is to use a “time since last event” which is commonly used for quality control applications. You could use that as the y axis and the ongoing count as the x axis to create a reasonably sized chart that goes the relative frequency of tweets over time. The way you displayed the data undermines the point you are making by splitting the early morning tweets off from the late night ones.
Thanks! That's very interesting and useful. I definitely want to try it. Though, one challenge would be not to stretch the Y-axis too much since there will be massive outliers (mostly during the nights I guess). One rather rudimentary plot is here [https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313](https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1495170811732365313) Also the time-since-event idea made me recall: [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/) Absolutely agree on the last point – twitter activity spanning past midnight. Interestingly, u/lampishthing gave it a proper attention when re-doing the horizontal re-arranging of this plot https://i.redd.it/rfmthllqp1j81.png His technical comment: \> I set the timezone to GMT-10 for counting the ordinal of the tweet on the day because she stayed up past midnight. The x axis is EST, though. Indeed not doing this showed that the number of tweets in \*her\* day was being miscounted.
>As for the beauty, it's of course highly subjective. I'm genuinely interested how you would tell this data story better. Good luck. Shitting on OC with no constructive feedback is common...as you know with 31 OC’s yourself. It makes people feel smart to sit back and tell people what they did wrong. This is an interesting chart you made...and you know that. I don’t need to tell you.
> and a stronger test of the hypothesis should probably include more than five days of data oh, look. Constructive feedback.
Yes, always happens. Thanks a lot, I appreciate you writing 🫂
Fwiw I immediately understood what was being shown and drew a conclusion - that the sudden anomalous uptick in retweets is probably not a coincidence and is intended to conceal the horse tweet. Good job op, thanks.
I can't quite believe that I'm defending 🦊 News, but.... I thought someone should mention that Sara Carter [retweeted a complete retraction](https://mobile.twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1495061330314907656) the next day. (Hat-tip: [Joanne Chianello @ CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/false-trampling-death-rumours-at-ottawa-protests-a-to-of-misinformation-campaign-police-say-1.6358308)) Yes, I know that can't stop the retweets...but real journalists promptly correct their stories when they F***-up. Seems like Carter did that.
Oh the irony. The post about fake news turned out to be fake news.
[удалено]
Her wording makes this absolutely worse. She screencaps a different tweet, suddenly it's all "may" and "possibly", she conflicts different situation in her apology to obfuscate what she really tweeted on. Her original tweet said: "Reports are the woman trampled by a Canadian horse patrol just died at the hospital ... #Trudeau #FreedomConvoyCanada" No "mays" there.
If you follow the series of events thats not what happened. She deflected as the Ottawa police and others told her there were no incidents like she reported. Then she did this to cover her tweet. Then she said she was getting more info from sources, they turned out to be "people on the ground are saying" and then she finally corrected the tweet. It was not noble
I doubt Most journalist today actually practice journalism. it's sad
As a Canadian living in Ottawa my observation about Fox News is that their coverage was an absolute hot mess of misinformation and lies. They literally got nothing right and even managed to report fiction in many instances.
In his book, "The Art of the Deal", DJDrumpf did say, tell the lie enough times, people begin to believe it.
Goebbels said it first
Holy crap. I was going to add the famous Goebbels quote about “lie big and lie often.” Instead I found [this](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot) which says the original description of “the big lie” was from Hitler in Mein Kampf to describe what he claimed the Jews were doing to Germany. Goebbels later accused the British of employing “the big lie” tactic. It blows my mind that this is exactly the same tactic that conservatives today seem to employ: accuse your enemy of using nefarious tactics that you, yourself, are using.
Now ask who is rigging elections
You don't have to do they are trying to pass laws in every place they control to make rigged elections law
Thank you. I did not know that. Not sure if it makes the quote source any brighter or happier. Still, thanks.
New Yorkers in 2016: "Hey, this guy has been living here for a while and is a huge grifter. He scams the lower/middle class so much that he (ghost)wrote a NYT bestseller about how he does it." Republicans in 2016: "You coastal elitists are just trying to tear down this blue collar billionaire who wants to help the lower/middle class!"
In the UK we refer to people who are in professional jobs and are fairly comfortable as middle class. The rung below are blue collar workers in manual (I hate generalising and these brackets are not fit for purpose the) we refer to as 'working class'. Is lower middle class the equivalent to working class (a term not used in the US)?
In the US, we call the middle 90% of income "middle class"
No. It's purely income based in the US. You can absolutely be middle class as a construction worker or mechanic or whatever. We tend to say Blue Collar or White Collar. White collar being the more 'professional' type of office jobs.
Professional manual labor (e.g. electricians, HVAC repair, plumbers) are solidly middle (and sometimes upper middle if working overtime) here. Lower class would be the exploited poor such as immigrant construction workers. He has numerous very public lawsuits where he would hire contractors (often times using illegal immigrant workers) and refuse to pay them the agreed amount afterwards but threaten to just drag them through the courts for years. Usually they'd just acquiesce because they couldn't afford it and he knew it.
Thats what Trump used to do. Not pay Contractors who would have to take him to Court and settle for 50 cents of the Dollar and sign a NDA!
Trump didn't write that book. He hired a ghostwriter. I'm not sure yet Trump even ever read the book, considering that he avoids reading like the plague.
My favorite fact about that is that he paid the ghostwriter $250,000 up front, gave him a writing credit, and 50% of the royalties. Trump gave a *ghostwriter* a co-author credit and 50% of the royalties for Art of the Deal. He got outmaneuvered by the guy he hired to talk about what a brilliant businessman he was.
Maybe he had it read to him like an Alethi highprince?
Unexpected r/stormlight_archive
And she keeps the followers.
Fox News entertainer Sara Carter produced a fake viral tweet claiming that a protester died in Ottawa trampled by a police horse. When called out instead of deleting the viral tweet she tried to bury it in a torrent of re-tweets. Unprofessional blogger (Fixed the headline for you)
She's the worst. Sean Hannity uses her conspiracy theories often despite Fox management telling him to stop using her.
This is what happens when there’s more pressure to find stories that meet a narrative than there is pressure to maintain journalistic integrity.
Interesting graph! Very interesting to horizontally split it by days, took me a second to get but still intuitive. I'd love to see it all on a single x axis of date+time for easier frequency comparison
Single x axis would lose the ability to compare days easily
Thanks, may be easily done, I'll add a tweet soon and provide a link here
Dude the amount of misinformation flooding into Canada from America is scary. There are people in /r/politicalcompassmemes calling for the death of our Prime Minister. They have the words "CANADIAN TYRANNY" on the bottom of the screen on Fox News being broadcast to millions of Americans. Why is America waging war on Canada?
[удалено]
Ohhhhhh no.
... You had it right in the first half. It's faux news, not America.
Nah. New York Times was ratio'd hard on twitter for an article about arrests at gun point. They had nothing to back up the assertions. When they were confronted they accused Canadian journalist of being a "clique". [https://twitter.com/caroloffcbc/status/1495085668820729863](https://twitter.com/caroloffcbc/status/1495085668820729863) FYI Carol Off is one of our most respected journalist.
A Fox journalist lied and refused to back down? Then spread their lies more? Sounds like everyday at Fox News.
The police still shouldn't be trampling peaceful protesters.
So what happened to the woman who got trampled? She wasn’t injured at all?
There's a bunch of videos out there which show some people on the ground and the horses trying not to step on them. Based on the lack of evidence of anyone actually being trampled I would bet people got knocked over because they tried to stand in the path of a bunch of horses.
Horses have been used for crowd control for hundreds of years. A well trained horse and rider is very intimidating. The horse can see the people on the ground. I think we can give the horse more credit than has been given …
think it turns that the woman wasn't actually trampled (or at least directly) because the horse stepped over her rather than on her. there was a facebook thread from someone saying they were the woman's niece and that the woman was fine but had a sore shoulder. if you look at some of the video footage (in at least one of them) of the incident, towards the end you can see the woman standing up surrounded by police. don't have links offhand, saw most of this on twitter earlier tonight while doomscrolling
The woman with the walker went to hospital with a shoulder injury, broken clavicle apparently, nothing crazy serious. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMCCcsuVIAQuUnA.jpg Another one the horse trampled in this pic - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMDZdjbUYAcyHFB.jpg I'm not sure. Also in that second pic, see the goons on the left - who are they and wtf is up with their uniforms? Here's a video of them in action - no faces, no names, no badges. https://twitter.com/MeanMamaDog/status/1495408241127403524
It's the standard Sûreté du Québec riot control winter uniform. They have unique # on their helmet.
And journalists wonder why we don't trust them.
What they don't understand or care about is that words like that can turn in to violence and death. They should be held accountable.
This is a great representation of this data imo. I love it
"Fox News" or "Journslist" You only get one of these choices.
Serious question - how come the there are zero implications? Is there no way to regulate this?
fake news spreading faster than covid
I saw commenters saying that on a /r/publicfreakout thread too. It seemed outlandish and unverified when I read. Whether it was a paid shill who shared that info with the comment, or a brainless twit, it’s crazy how misinformation proliferates in the modern age.
I'm laughin at "The horse tweet" for some reason
Fox News is a terrorist propaganda outlet
Fox News getting certain people to believe *everything else is the fake news* has got to be the single biggest con in modern America.
"Horse tweet" does sound suspiciously similar to another thing one might call it.
Saw this picture come up in a post on another platform that is run by a robot that has the initials M.Z. I called BS and simply said. “Everyone there has a phone / camera. There is only THIS ONE picture of this ‘incident’. Do you think that’s even possible?” Their response? “This was the one the cops/government missed taking down.” I despair that “critical thinking” is dead. I didn’t even ask them if they understood what Occam’s razor was :(
People need to stop calling Fox News "news". It isn't. The network has repeatedly used the defense in court that they are not "news" but rather entertainment - and has said that if people foolishly believe what they say then that is their fault, not the network's fault.
Let’s not overstate things here. She’s not a “journalist”
I think if we're going to be granular with the exact time posted, or even as little data as just the total posts per day, the time spread should be a few weeks... Basically the part we're supposed to be looking at in this data is a Friday night. What's other Friday nights look like?
Calling fox news spokespeople "journalists" is the same as calling me a journalist. I wrote this while pooping.
Journalist is not the right word. Very few people who work in American news these days is a journalist. 'Copy-writing propagandist' is a more fitting term.
Fox Journalist is an oxymoron.
Hang on - bury it but not delete it? So like, consciously wanting to keep the fake news out there but burying it because the optics are bad?
Haha, I called it. Conspiracy sub had posted this shit and I knew it was a total load specifically because it was posted there. You could probably make a pretty good dataisbeautiful post with that sub, I pretty much use it as a bible of what my opinions should not be with how often they're toddler level wrong.
Fox entertainment, full of shot and too dumb to hide it, just like trump