New study: Russian propaganda may really have helped Trump in 2016
POLITICS
July 1, 20194 min read, 703 words

New study: Russian propaganda may really have helped Trump in 2016New study: Russian propaganda may really have helped Trump in 2016

 in 
Published: July 1, 2019  |  4 min read, 703 words
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his allies have long insisted that Russian's 2016 propaganda campaign on social media had no impact on the presidential election. The study, by researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, does not prove that Russian interference ...
New study: Russian propaganda may really have helped Trump in 2016 Read more

Scores for this article.

Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Lack of Reliable Sources2
img-trusted
67%
critic score
critic reviews: 3
img-contested
0%
public score
public reviews: 5

CRITIC REVIEWS

Well Sourced
July 6, 2019
This article credibly summarizes and presents the findings of a study. Critics of it seem to be unpersuaded by the study’s conclusions but that is not the fault of the article.
July 6, 2019
Is this helpful?
Well Sourced
July 5, 2019
It looks like Russian bots were at work trying to discredit this article on Credder!
July 5, 2019
Is this helpful?
Speculation
July 2, 2019
The two title lines and a third within the article reveal the illogical, speculative and ultimately contradictory nature of the piece. To wit: "New study shows Russian propaganda may really have helped Trump" "The study does not prove Russian interference swung the election to Trump." "The researchers found to their surprise that the Russian propaganda did not drive down Democrat Hillary Clinton's popularity, even though much of it was aimed at discrediting her. One factor may have been that the target audience was mostly right-wing media consumers who already disliked Clinton." The writer relies almost on pure supposition to spin a credulous tale. While the source (NBC News) is credible the article ultimately is not.
July 2, 2019
Is this helpful?

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Speculation
July 2, 2019
The information does not support the position taken by the article. This is a sensational, click-bait-esque, headline sitting atop an article that discusses research that comes to an entirely different conclusion.
July 2, 2019
Is this helpful?
Correlation w/o Causation
July 5, 2019
There is so much wrong with this article. Speculation, political agenda, but ultimately I think the most accurate review is correlation w/o causation because the author tried to correlate the time of active Russian trolls with an increase in poll numbers. It could've been correlating so much other data during that time. Too much beyond this to write in a single review. Clickbait.
July 5, 2019
Is this helpful?
Lack of Reliable Sources
July 2, 2019
This user only left a rating
July 2, 2019
Is this helpful?
Lack of Reliable Sources
July 2, 2019
This user only left a rating
July 2, 2019
Is this helpful?
Not Credible
July 2, 2019
Donald Trump claimed the elections were rigged even before he won. He knew Russia was involved - but apparently the NSA, the Secret Service and the FBI did not... not for two years.
July 2, 2019
Is this helpful?