/article

Fact sheet (résumé) de l’étude mentionnée

Measuring the reach of “fake news” and online disinformation in Europe | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
▻https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/measuring-reach-fake-news-and-online-disinformation-

In this factsheet by Richard Fletcher, Alessio Cornia, Lucas Graves and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, we provide top-level usage statistics for the most popular sites that independent fact-checkers and other observers have identified as publishers of false news and online disinformation. We focus on two European countries: France and Italy. We examine France and Italy as two particularly important cases, as both are widely seen as facing serious issues with for-profit and ideologically/politically motivated online disinformation.

We find that:
• None of the false news websites we considered had an average monthly reach of over 3.5% in 2017, with most reaching less than 1% of the online population in both France and Italy. By comparison, the most popular news websites in France (Le Figaro) and Italy (La Repubblica) had an average monthly reach of 22.3% and 50.9%, respectively; 
• The total time spent with false news websites each month is lower than the time spent with news websites. The most popular false news websites in France were viewed for around 10 million minutes per month, and for 7.5 million minutes in Italy. People spent an average of 178 million minutes per month with Le Monde, and 443 million minutes with La Repubblica—more than the combined time spent with all 20 false news sites in each sample;
• Despite clear differences in terms of website access, the level of Facebook interaction (defined as the total number of comments, shares, and reactions) generated by a small number of false news outlets matched or exceeded that produced by the most popular news brands. In France, one false news outlet generated an average of over 11 million interactions per month—five times greater than more established news brands. However, in most cases, in both France and Italy, false news outlets do not generate as many interactions as established news brands.

We have shown that many of the most prominent identified false news websites in these countries are far less popular than major established news sites. However, the difference between false news sites and news sites in terms of interactions on Facebook is less clear-cut. We believe that online disinformation is an important issue that the public, publishers, platform companies, policymakers, and other stakeholders should pay serious attention to. But overall, our analysis of the available evidence suggests that false news has more limited reach than is sometimes assumed.

Note : l’étude est financée par Google, ce que ne mentionne nulle part le blog du Decodex

The research was supported by Google UK as part of the #Digital_News_Initiative (CTR00220), as well as the Digital News Report (CTR00150)

(extrait du pdf de l’étude, 10 pages dont 2 de tableaux en annexe
▻https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-02/Measuring%20the%20reach%20of%20fake%20news%20and%20o )

version Le Monde

Les sites russes Russia Today et Sputnik, également mentionnés par les chercheurs parce qu’ils sont régulièrement évoqués dans le débat sur les fausses informations, touchent eux aussi une frange restreinte de la population (respectivement 1,5 % et 1,4 %).

version Institut Reuters

For comparative purposes, we also included two prominent Russian news sites which have featured in European policy discussions around disinformation, namely Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik. These Russian state-backed organisations are clearly different from sites that engage in for-profit fabrication of false news, but both independent fact-checkers and the EU’s European External Action Service East Stratcom Task Force have identified multiple instances where these sites have published disinformation.

avec en note la référence à 2 sites :

• ►https://euvsdisinfo.eu site tenu par la East StratCom Task Force, montée en 2015 et financée par le Conseil de l’Europe (décisions du 19 et 20 mars 2015)

Q&A about the #East_StratCom_Task_Force - European External Action Service
▻https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/2116/+Questions%20and%20Answers%20about%20the%20East%20StratCom%20Task%20Forc

How is the team composed?
The team is made up of fourteen full-time staff, recruited from the EU institutions or seconded by EU Member States. Team members have a variety of professional communications backgrounds and speak several languages, including Russian.

• nettement plus comique (!) ▻https://www.stopfake.org
dont le sous-titre affiche bravement

La lutte contre les informations falsifiées sur les événements en Ukraine

À propos de nous
▻https://www.stopfake.org/fr/a-propos-de-nous

Le site de vérification des faits StopFake.org a été lancé le 2 mars 2014 dans le but de vérifier les faits avancés par la propagande du Kremlin. Les initiateurs du projet sont des enseignants, d’anciens diplômés ainsi que des étudiants de l’Académie Mohyla (une école de journalisme en Ukraine. ndlr) et du programme « Futur digital du journalisme », destiné aux journalistes et rédacteurs.

Three things you should know about RT and Sputnik | EU vs DISINFORMATION
▻https://euvsdisinfo.eu/three-things-you-should-know-about-rt-and-sputnik

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/uploads/2017/09/W36_4.png

1. They are not independent
• Sputnik was created by a Presidential decree with the aim to “report on the state policy of Russia abroad”;
• RT is fully financed by the Russian government and is included in an official list of core organizations of strategic importance for Russia.

2. They do not want to be impartial
• “The period of impartial journalism is over. Objectivity is a myth”, the CEO and editor-in-chief Dmitry Kiselyov told Sputnik’s editorial staff after a reorganisation of the media house to which Sputnik belongs;
• The management of both RT and Sputnik receive weekly instructions from the Kremlin. These instructions include guidelines on political narratives, what should be covered and whom the outlets should not talk about.

3. They produce fake news to promote political objectives
• The independent media watchdog in the UK, Ofcom, has on 15 occasions expressed criticism of RT for, among other problems, “materially misleading” output;
• RT has for example been instrumental in creating the smoke screen of disinformation, with which the Russian authorities seek to cover up the facts about the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine with this article as just one of many examples.

T
rès complet et comme d’hab, effarant.

Pour être complet (?) il faut aussi rappeler que Decodex est financé par Facebook (je ne crois pas qu’il y ait de montants qui circulent).

Le Monde reçoit des financements publics mais aussi de Google (FINP - AIPG).

En résumé, une étude financée par Google sur des données collectées par Le Monde sur financement de Facebook.

Pour terminer, que donne une recherche Google sur les termes Decodex Facebook ?

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/7fq633f5g94u25s/20180213_Decodex.png

Bon, c’est un peu normal, mais où se trouve la limite ? Sur cette recherche, Il n’y a sans doute pas vraiment besoin d’éventuels coups de pouce algorithmiques au profit des clients et des partenaires pour arriver à ce résultat. Encore que… pour être « à la une »…

Allez, une dernière recherche : Decodex financement
Décidément, il y a de bons sujets et des mauvais sujets,… un bon moyen d’augmenter son score au Decodex avant de terminer dans la catégorie #fake_news (je ne l’avais pas encore mis jusqu’ici)
• 3 sites hum hum
• 2 arretsurimages.net
• 2 agoravox.fr

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/dort1ruo9xu8cjo/20180213_Decodex2.jpg

Suite des aventures de East Stratcom et de sa vaillante lutte contre la désinformation russe : ►https://seenthis.net/messages/680274

Quand les journalistes « sérieux » se valident entre eux...