Who Believes in Fake News? Identification of Political (A)Symmetries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The conflation of fake news and conservatism within the article is asserted rather than debated and reads more like a set of jibes than an honest inquiry. This is all done through a large number of quotes from selected studies almost all of which appear to reflect these slanted views. For example, in lines 31-33 you said ‘the sharing of fake news on social media has had such serious social and political 31 repercussions that some media commentators have, in the recent past, blamed fake news 32 producers for the election of Donald Trump (Parkinson, 2016; Dewey, 2016).’ But the sources are from the left-wing Guardian and Washington Post.
Other pejorative and misleading statements include lines 55-56 -- ‘blind surrender to partisanship or political orientation can threaten the democratic process, motivating false beliefs or an alienation of credible information’.
Most of this comes through the authors’ literature review, but the inclusion of these views without any accompanying criticism implies agreement. The reader is left at the sharp disadvantage of not knowing what quality of evidence is presented in the large number of articles quoted here. There are in any case far-too many referrals to other studies, often used to support uncontentious or obvious points. The poor quality of the literature review may be commonplace in academic articles, but this is no excuse for sloppy work. Even if this study is a meta-study, this is unacceptable.
The author’s use of material, although purporting to include the United States and Europe, is mostly American. Moreover, the authors timed the study in 2016, which is clearly intentional, as Trump was running for president of the United States at the time.
Fake news is often a subjective definition, and there is also fake news on the left, such as the Guardian and CNN.
The ideal media is free, but in reality many media are controlled by politics and capital. This brings us back to the question: Does public space exist? In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jürgen Habermas referred to the ideal public space as a public square or café in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, where traditional intellectuals could speak, discuss politics, and have freedom of action. In his book, Habermas said, ‘[t]he public sphere of civil society stood or fell with the principle of universal access. A public sphere from which groups were ipso excluded was less than merely incomplete; it was not a public sphere at all’. In practice, only the well-educated and possessed of assets can enter the bourgeois public sphere, just like what happened in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The same phenomenon can also be observed in the media. Since the advent of the news, the functions of traditional public spaces have been transferred to mass media. However, in recent decades, the media around the world have gradually lost their checks and balances on society and even the government because of the support of capitalists and governing departments (that is, special treatment of news and information for the sake of profit). The rise of the Internet can be said to extend the life of public space in time. At the beginning of the era of new media, people had high expectations for online platforms and even felt that they could communicate online and offline. The unrestricted information release, multiple release channels and multimedia presentations can be said to determine the decline of traditional public space and media public space. Yet, in reality, online platforms and new media, such as Facebook and Twitter, have been disappointing in recent years. Many Internet users have found that the government and the owners of these media often cooperate in formulating policies limiting people’s participation in political discussions.
Ordinary people can just be fooled. And people on the left (or those who call themselves left) are often learned people. In the United States, the ideological reversal of the Republican and Democratic parties happened in the 1990s, the Democratic Party has since become a party supported by intellectuals, and the Republican Party is pro-working class. The same is true of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK. In recent years the Conservative Party has become less like the Conservative Party and its social policies are very socialist. Labour, on the other hand, is led by the former chief prosecutor. In the last century, this was unimaginable. Can we say that the left wing at the time was less knowledgeable and willing to accept fake news? The term fake news is often used as a designation by hypocritical intellectuals and politicians for a past political stance (i.e. conservatism) that they have now rejected. Try, how would you be treated if you said you were against LGBT in the academic world? If you were in the US, I think you would definitely lose your teaching position.
The authors also ignore the Asian region. In Asia, fake news is often created by left-wing institutions, especially in communist countries, or countries with right-wing rulings (Japan, Singapore, etc.), but the purpose is for left-wing parties to attack political opponents.
This journal does not use the APA style. Please use the correct citation style.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your consideration of our study. We have softened the language regarding some aspects of our study’s conclusions, as suggested. We also changed the bibliographic norms, as you suggested. Detailed responses are attached here.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues,
Indeed very good paper, but to have an excellent paper, aside of identifying most vulnerable population in regard fake news, I think you should be more focused on media literacy and critical thinking. More critical thinking less fake news influence. I think that you should add at least one paragraph related to Media literacy and Fake news. Proposal: "Media literacy vs. fake news - the only way out".
Sincerely
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your words about our manuscript and its careful consideration. We appreciate your suggestions. Although this was not the focus of our systematic review, our paper acknowledges the importance of media literacy in fighting fake news, as we added the topic in the manuscripts’ initial literature review and conclusions
Reviewer 3 Report
I consider that the author(s) do a judicious work of collection and analysis. A theoretical basis is properly constructed that supports the lines of action of the text and the questions that guide the development of the research process. The emnpleada methodology is clear, the factors to discard elements of the investigative corpus and the categories of analysis used.
The construction of results is consistent with the previously reported. Throughout the text a dialogue with the authors is appreciated and the conclusions emerge from the story constructed to reach the readers. It is clear that the text responds to protocols for research processes, contributes to the study of the phenomenon and will be a reference for future studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your kind words about our manuscript and its careful consideration. We believe that this investigation is a meaningful contribution to the literature and can motivate further researchRound 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author did not consider my previous comments. Here are the comments
The conflation of fake news and conservatism within the article is asserted rather than debated and reads more like a set of jibes than an honest inquiry. This is all done through a large number of quotes from selected studies almost all of which appear to reflect these slanted views. For example, in lines 31-33 you said ‘the sharing of fake news on social media has had such serious social and political 31 repercussions that some media commentators have, in the recent past, blamed fake news 32 producers for the election of Donald Trump (Parkinson, 2016; Dewey, 2016).’ But the sources are from the left-wing Guardian and Washington Post.
Other pejorative and misleading statements include lines 55-56 -- ‘blind surrender to partisanship or political orientation can threaten the democratic process, motivating false beliefs or an alienation of credible information’.
Most of this comes through the authors’ literature review, but the inclusion of these views without any accompanying criticism implies agreement. The reader is left at the sharp disadvantage of not knowing what quality of evidence is presented in the large number of articles quoted here. There are in any case far-too many referrals to other studies, often used to support uncontentious or obvious points. The poor quality of the literature review may be commonplace in academic articles, but this is no excuse for sloppy work. Even if this study is a meta-study, this is unacceptable.
The author’s use of material, although purporting to include the United States and Europe, is mostly American. Moreover, the authors timed the study in 2016, which is clearly intentional, as Trump was running for president of the United States at the time.
Fake news is often a subjective definition, and there is also fake news on the left, such as the Guardian and CNN.
The ideal media is free, but in reality many media are controlled by politics and capital. This brings us back to the question: Does public space exist? In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Jürgen Habermas referred to the ideal public space as a public square or café in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, where traditional intellectuals could speak, discuss politics, and have freedom of action. In his book, Habermas said, ‘[t]he public sphere of civil society stood or fell with the principle of universal access. A public sphere from which groups were ipso excluded was less than merely incomplete; it was not a public sphere at all’. In practice, only the well-educated and possessed of assets can enter the bourgeois public sphere, just like what happened in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The same phenomenon can also be observed in the media. Since the advent of the news, the functions of traditional public spaces have been transferred to mass media. However, in recent decades, the media around the world have gradually lost their checks and balances on society and even the government because of the support of capitalists and governing departments (that is, special treatment of news and information for the sake of profit). The rise of the Internet can be said to extend the life of public space in time. At the beginning of the era of new media, people had high expectations for online platforms and even felt that they could communicate online and offline. The unrestricted information release, multiple release channels and multimedia presentations can be said to determine the decline of traditional public space and media public space. Yet, in reality, online platforms and new media, such as Facebook and Twitter, have been disappointing in recent years. Many Internet users have found that the government and the owners of these media often cooperate in formulating policies limiting people’s participation in political discussions.
Ordinary people can just be fooled. And people on the left (or those who call themselves left) are often learned people. In the United States, the ideological reversal of the Republican and Democratic parties happened in the 1990s, the Democratic Party has since become a party supported by intellectuals, and the Republican Party is pro-working class. The same is true of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK. In recent years the Conservative Party has become less like the Conservative Party and its social policies are very socialist. Labour, on the other hand, is led by the former chief prosecutor. In the last century, this was unimaginable. Can we say that the left wing at the time was less knowledgeable and willing to accept fake news? The term fake news is often used as a designation by hypocritical intellectuals and politicians for a past political stance (i.e. conservatism) that they have now rejected. Try, how would you be treated if you said you were against LGBT in the academic world? If you were in the US, I think you would definitely lose your teaching position.
The authors also ignore the Asian region. In Asia, fake news is often created by left-wing institutions, especially in communist countries, or countries with right-wing rulings (Japan, Singapore, etc.), but the purpose is for left-wing parties to attack political opponents.
From my perspective as a member of the editorial team, I want everything we publish to be a contribution to human knowledge. To be published, articles need to bring new evidence to light, reveal new insights into issues and make new arguments. If I don’t think an article meets all these criteria, then I won’t want to publish it in the journal. At the moment I do not feel that your article is suitable for publication in the journal in its current form.
Author Response
We proceeded with the changes suggested. Changes have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript, along with a comment.
