On February 6th, the University of Oxford released a report on "Junk News Consumption." The study, as part of the Computational Propaganda Research Project, sadly served only as a left-wing excoriation of non-left-wing news sites.
According to Oxford, websites such as Newsbusters, Drudge Report, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and National Review are "unprofessional," "biased," and "emotionally driven."
Furthermore, according to the "findings":
“Extreme hard right pages -- distinct from Republican pages -- share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”
Consequently, news sites such as The Guardian, Newsweek, and Mother Jones published articles such as "Fake News Sharing in US is a Rightwing Thing, Says Study."
As per Mother Jones:
“Trump supporters are among the most prolific social media users spreading fake news and conspiracy content.”
With phenomenal condescension, Phillip Howard -- lead researcher of the obviously biased project -- told the Sacramento Bee:
“A small chunk of the population isn’t able to talk politics or share ideas in a sensible way with the rest of the population. That’s a problem for democracy.”
Incredible. More of a problem seems to be the political agenda of the Oxford study. Where is its coverage of left-wing news sources which routinely report half-truths and complete lies about President Trump and the Right, as constantly covered by TruthRevolt?
The Left has long controlled academia in the U.S. It is disappointing to note that the unhinged bias polluting our institutions is no different across the sea. We suppose it proves Mark Twain correct: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."