They didn’t get millennial ages right anyway. The headline is misleading because it only accounts for 18-29 and many millennials are closer to 40 now. It’s all nonsense.
The actual data seems to suggest elder millennial, Gen X, and younger boomers do the best, while Gen z, younger millennial, and elder boomers do the worst. This kinda makes sense? The people that do the best have a frame of reference of traditional news media but also enough internet exposure to be familiar with the amount of bullshit out there. The people that do the worst have either limited familiarity with internet nonsense, or limited familiarity with traditional news media.
B/c Gen X actually grew up doing this shit and already knows how to do it.
A buddy of mine when I was working building bridges would always say shit about millennials like “nobody wants to hire or work with millennials because they’re so lazy” and shit like that and the one day I was just like “you know that we are millennials right? Like when you hear shit about millennials they’re talking about us.”
He was so upset when he googled it and realized that we were, in fact, millennials.
It has more to do with where you regularly get your news than your age. It's just that Fox "News" and Facebook are the primary conspiracy and disinformation channels and the demographic for both of those skews older. TikTok is nearly as bad and as people continue to migrate to newer platforms I'm sure we'll see an associated uptick in misinformation assuming the platforms don't take active measures to curb it.
i would also guess the people who buy he most into bullshit are the ones who push it the hardest. people who recognize misinformation are going to just pass by it, not perpetuate it.
comments on tiktok are def as unhinged as those on fox news stories. with more emojis
Got a 20/20. I think this test sucks though. At best, it's a measure of how good your headline bullshit detector is.
It's a critical skill, but it was just guess work. Reading those headlines should make you more skeptical but just because I was skeptical of those headlines doesn't mean they were necessarily false. I'd have to read the actual article and then compare it to various sources.
I suppose you're right though because some people just take every headline as complete truth as long as it confirms their biasis.
And as we've seen time and time again on reddit, people who only read the headline and go on gut feeling tend to end up making an ass out of themselves when they try to comment because they're missing all the context.
It doesn't work. This is a world filled with clickbait and "technically the truth" headlines meant to draw in clicks, not a real description of the content.
and content that is articulated to distort the facts of the matter to further a particular agenda.
if anything gut feeling is 100% a reinforcement of your existing prejudices and beliefs. like the 'false news' folks who think any news item that challenges their world view is wrong on principal.
If you look at the actual headlines that respondents were presented with, this was an exercise in common sense. Real headlines included topics like the EU being viewed positively around the world, while fake headlines included topics like Ebola being caused by US nuclear weapon testing. If you believe headlines just because they agree with your worldview, then yeah...you are susceptible to misinformation and clickbait. Seems like a fair enough measurement, all things considered.
If we just go off of gut feelings then we are all falling for a lot of fake shit. All they need to do is just make it sound real enough. Then they rope you in, and slowly make it more and more crazy.
Like if you show me a headline saying JFK Jr is secretly alive, and will come out of hiding to say he's secretly the vice president and Trump has been the president the whole time, I would say that's fucking crazy and false... but people fell for it. They trusted their gut instincts, and that slowly lead them to the point where they gathered outside for a week in Texas to wait for JFK Jr to come back. Because that's actually a thing that happened. Not even a joke.
So while it can be helpful, and should be listened to, you should also be willing to sometimes put it to the side and read an article every now and then.
Edit: I will say though, at some point it is worth disregarding. Like I know it's a fallacy to attack information because of the source... but some sources really just aren't worth listening to. So some site like Stormfront is posted, I won't beleive it till I see something else.
I scored perfect on it. The headlines that tell you how to feel about the content by making value judgments are fake news. Some one does something maliciously, or something was done to manipulate usually means fake news because it should be up to you as a reader to consume the content and from draw your own conclusions. But yes, evaluating sources is important, but headlines tell you a lot about the goals of the content.
After taking the test, which wasn’t hard at all, I feel like it was lacking additional information. I frequently use the source of the information to determine accuracy.
!These were just badly written headlines. If the headline is accurate, then the sample size was low quality.
I received a 19/20. I did miss one. I think I knew which one it was as well because I was skeptical but marked it anyway.
I'm not so sure. Anecdotally, lots of my friends stay up to date on news from various For You pages, or Instagram stories of orgs they follow. By being on this website you're by definition someone who is active and selective about how they consume information, most people just consume what's put in front of them.
Basically, it seems plausible to me. The headline is pretty trash though.
The study isn't claiming this. They do not have sampling method that would make their results 1. Representative of single demographics or 2. Comparable between demographics. Business insider is just jerking off their boomer readers.
20/20 ez
Thing is? I totally lied several times because I knew what the test wanted me to think was fake and real, not because I actually disbelieved the headline.
Seems to me like GenZ just isn't good at or interested in fitting into the narrative. If I wasn't treating it like a test I'd totally have gotten, like 17 or 18 instead.
The survey's available here if anybody's interested.
It's pretty much garbage, because it gives only headlines, and headlines are a terrible way to judge an article's legitimacy. All it takes is one shoddy study and some bad journalism to write an article about it, and you can get basically any headline you want.
Unfortunately I can't think of any examples off the top of my head right now.
Who is making those claims and headlines is pretty important missing information. Let's take two examples: "New Study: Left-Wingers Are More Likely to Lie to Get a Higher Salary" and "New Study: Clear Relationship Between Eye Color and Intelligence".
If it was Fox News or The Sun, then either they are completely made up or the studies are terrible, or taken out of context.
But if the BBC or CNN had those headlines, then I would assume they would more than likely be true.
YouGov did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment made outside of normal working hours.
😂 at least they’re forthright about their premature publication 😂
I read the research paper and went through the questions.
More republicans correctly labelled 4/10 false headlines. More Democrats in 6/10 headlines.
More republicans correctly labelled 2/10 true headlines. More democrats in 8/10 headlines.
Young people in general labelled true headlines as false showing larger mistrust of media.
Most people who say they use the AP as a news source (55%) land in the highest-scoring category.
People who get their news from National Public Radio, Axios, HuffPost, and PBS are more likely than consumers of most other outlets to be in the highest-scoring group. Consumers of MSNBC, The Hill, Reuters, Politico, and the Washington Post also do comparatively well on the test.
worst performers generally are social media platforms. That includes Snapchat (53% of people who get news from it land in the lowest-scoring category), Truth Social (45%), WhatsApp (44%), TikTok (41%), and Instagram (38%).
The BI headline is clickbait which is to be expected from a 'news source' where company partners collaborate with journalists for 'leak' in order to undermine other partners for promotion.
Oh shiiit. They got me again! Or for the first time? I'm not sure.
Anyone is susceptible to misinformation if they're pandered to. People are generally just products of their environment.
True, this comment section would be very different if it said Boomers were worse than Zoomers.
Yea, kind of worried this place is becoming an insecure knee-jerk reaction place just like reddit became post 2016. Like it's totally possible that boomers could better detect fake news. What's the big deal if so? No reason to take it so personally and start crying about Business Insider having an agenda. It's just ridiculous.
X to doubt. My mom is a boomer, and I constantly hear some bullshit she saw on Facebook or heard from the radiovangelists. Last month I heard about how Africa is splitting in two right now (it is, but on geologic time scales) and that it's proof that Jesus is going to be here literally any second. I heard all about how Obama was (and still is) the antichrist and how him forcing everyone to convert to digital TV antennas was the mark of the beast. She's actually a pretty decent barometer for right wing misinformation; for example, she started complaining about Ukraine getting weapons and how we could have spent that money better at home around the same time that that narrative started emerging on the right. (Nevermind that she never would have supported that money actually being spent to help people here at home.)
Boomers, like anyone, are a mixed bag, you get some really, really sharp ones every now and then. In my experience, however, I find that the people that have trouble opening their email tend to also not be very good at spotting bullshit on the internet.
Um i took the survey then pressed submit and nothing happened :( Idk if its because I put that I'm from Canada maybe they dont want my input lol
But ya some of those were obvious like "Government Officials Have Illegally Manipulated the Weather to Cause Devastating Storms" boy wonder if thats true or not /s but tbh other ones i wasnt super sure like the counties one bc im not sure how many counties are in the U.S.A. or whether that was a possible number? What is county vs district not sure.
Edit: i did it again in desktop mode (am on phone) and submitted it and it worked. Also i got 18/20.
I can understand the general point. While Boomers are getting their news from disinformation sources like Fox News, they are still getting info about events actually going on, even if it's extremely skewed.
But TikTok for younger generations is just active hoaxes and made up information that has nothing to do with reality, not to mention extreme amounts of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
So, they both have their major issues. I suggest getting rid of Fox News and Tiktok! :P
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I'm GenX, I just don't give a fuck.
Interesting, though, how we're not being mentioned... again :D
save