Network Propaganda and the Radicalization of the Right-Wing Media

[Katsumoto]

Don't take anything for granted. Stay vigilant. Make sure your side does not fall into moral panic.

Probably a little late for that. The likes of Fox News and Breibart have made millions inducing moral panic, whether it's against immigrants, Muslims, gays, 'liberal media', the Clintons or the Deep State. Selling fear is their bread and butter.

[The spartan]

I can't help but think that this is the end result of the Neo-Con's attempts to keep the social conservatives on their side throughout the 90s and early 2000s. The irony is that they have been completely chased out of the Republican party now.

[Katsumoto]

Could be part of it, the study does go to some lengths to provide some historic context for the current problems in Chapter 11 but I've not read too much of it:

Over the course of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, a series of technological, institutional, and political changes removed each of the structural barriers that had contained the first generation of right-wing media and created the conditions for the emergence and dramatic success of the second generation right-wing media system that undergirds today’s asymmetric architecture, anchored by Fox News and talk radio.

I didn't realise talk radio was still so popular in the US.

Studies by Pew of the news habits of Republicans and Democrats demonstrate the significant difference between the two audiences. A 2014 study found that 47 percent of “consistently conservative” respondents identified Fox News as their “main source of news about government and politics.” Another 11 percent mentioned “local radio” as their main source, and in a breakdown of sources of news that meant that Hannity on radio, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck on radio, and Beck’s “The Blaze” all ran ahead of ABC, CBS, or NBC, much less CNN. By contrast, “consistently liberal” respondents were spread out much more evenly across various media, including primarily CNN (15 percent), NPR (13 percent), MSNBC (12 percent), and the New York Times (10 percent). Conservatives not only watch and listen to Fox News and talk radio, they also express high trust in these sources. A full 88 percent of consistently conservative viewers trusted Fox News, 62 percent trusted Hannity, and 58 percent trusted Limbaugh. Among “consistently liberal” respondents, NPR, PBS, and the BBC were the most trusted sources, hovering around 70 percent. MSNBC, which since 2006 has mounted the most explicit effort to mirror the Fox News strategy for the left, received only a 52 percent trust score from consistently liberal respondents and was trusted by fewer than half of the “mostly liberal” respondents, all of whom trust CNN and the major television networks to a degree largely consistent with the trust patterns of respondents who were “mixed” liberal and conservative.

[Love Mountain]

It's also dominated by conservatives.

[fkizz]

Probably a little late for that. The likes of Fox News and Breibart have made millions inducing moral panic, whether it's against immigrants, Muslims, gays, 'liberal media', the Clintons or the Deep State. Selling fear is their bread and butter.

But said moral panic is controlled by a few puppet masters who know to rally masses.
Just like someone riding a war elephant, if it is going bersek in direction of opponent, no one cares, until the day they realize they lose control of such thing.

There was nervous panic when Trump rise was equated in MSM to Fascism by left wing media.

Trump is very controversial, but Fascism requires a political ideology body built up, ready for sacrifice and march, and for favoring corporativism over market capitalism, that simply does not fit this Aristocrat Billionaire who enjoys the Luxuries of Capitalism Life and who sells Luxury Real Estate products as a way to build up Wealth.

In question of provocking the masses into nervous fear state, there are no innocents here, that's what I'm saying.

[Love Mountain]

But said moral panic is controlled by a few puppet masters who know to rally masses.
Just like someone riding a war elephant, if it is going bersek in direction of opponent, no one cares, until the day they realize they lose control of such thing.

There was nervous panic when Trump rise was equated in MSM to Fascism by left wing media.

Trump is very controversial, but Fascism requires a political ideology body built up, ready for sacrifice and march, and for favoring corporativism over market capitalism, that simply does not fit this Aristocrat Billionaire who enjoys the Luxuries of Capitalism Life and who sells Luxury Real Estate products as a way to build up Wealth.

In question of provocking the masses into nervous fear state, there are no innocents here, that's what I'm saying.

What you are saying is that everyone shares responsibility for the current situation. Forgive me, but I find such observations meaningless. It only serves to detract from those who are most culpable and brings attention to those who don't know any better.

Every poor person bears significant responsibility for their poverty, is a similar statement. Yet, when we discuss methods to end, reduce, or tackle poverty, such observations are hardly helpful, aren't they? We all know that the poor are less capable or deficient in some way, whether is be their genetics that result in sickness or disability, or simply poor life choices. The goal of public police is to reduce the impact of both of those inputs and to encourage positive inputs instead.

Thus, when we talk about public discourse and how we can improve it, the fact that most people do a poor job of reading, is hardly relevant to the conversation. That's the whole point of the conversation, how can we capture people's attention, make them think critically, and to look beyond partisanship. The fact that people are naturally tribal, stubborn, and rather stupid is not helpful. It's quite the opposite actually, it distracts from the real issues at hand.

[fkizz]

What you are saying is that everyone shares responsibility for the current situation. Forgive me, but I find such observations meaningless. It only serves to detract from those who are most culpable and brings attention to those who don't know any better.

But sharing responsability for the Parliament is the point of Democracy, regardless if things are good or bad. Presidents are relatively replaceable, compared to monarchs, and at least more or less half of the country population consented in the President leadership.
Let's at least agree to sharing some responsability. We're all fallible human beings, and using the fear button is a temptation that never fails in politics, sadly. Plus the ones who don't use such triggers get very ungrateful results, like Bernie Sanders.

We all know that the poor are less capable or deficient in some way, whether is be their genetics that result in sickness or disability, or simply poor life choices. The goal of public police is to reduce the impact of both of those inputs and to encourage positive inputs instead.

Hold your horses, the poor might be such due to having been born in the wrong family or wealth inheritance reasons, having gotten a bad ticket.
That's why Scholarships exist. There's those among the most intelligent who have poor backgrounds, Ph.D Michio Kaku used a Scholarship to pay for his Harvard studies, and his family wouldn't have been capable for such.
Same for Ph.D Ha Joon Chang (the partner with Mariana Mazzucato and David Rodrik)

Thus, when we talk about public discourse and how we can improve it, the fact that most people do a poor job of reading, is hardly relevant to the conversation. That's the whole point of the conversation, how can we capture people's attention, make them think critically, and to look beyond partisanship. The fact that people are naturally tribal, stubborn, and rather stupid is not helpful. It's quite the opposite actually, it distracts from the real issues at hand.

Well I am at agreement here. A public looking beyond partisanship with critical thinking could be non-ironically come close to an utopia, but let's face the reality we have, our instincts take over too easily. See for example how irrational/emotional people act in a football (soccer) game. At least this case is harmless because it's a confessed "raw emotion episode", so there's self awareness, but in other cases such as politics that is not the case.

Precisely because I agree with you is also why I feel pessimistic in this, the side that pushes the most for our tribal instincts is the one that wins. Appeal to reason gets an ungrateful response.

[NorseThing]

My problem with the opening post (I have not completed my reading of the linked piece, sorry) is the assumption that there is a fundamental difference in how various media are biased and how the 'echo chamber' affects people based upon the published media articles.

i read a variety of media and have done so for decades. Yes, I often prefer to read more on what reinforces my bias, but that does not mean I am a prisoner of my own echo chamber creation. This is natural. If seek out more of what I disagree with, then I simply get multiple readings of the same arguments. If I disagree with several, I see no reason to seek out more of the same. Not a good return on my invested time. The media in general, not just the right, is simply cherry picking news to fit their internal biases. You see this even on BBC World News America, a PBS broadcast which regularly has the host announcer 'interviewing' another media member and asks what do you think... or some such idiocy that is not news but commentary on the news. The problem is a false argument when you break it down as right wing or whatever. The problem is separating the news from opinion (commentary). Not separation within a broadcast but separation into differant programs or perhaps even differant channels of broadcast. Announcers should announce. Reporters should report. Mixing the two gets the media networks into trouble that fact checking does not resolve.

[Katsumoto]

My problem with the opening post (I have not completed my reading of the linked piece, sorry) is the assumption that there is a fundamental difference in how various media are biased and how the 'echo chamber' affects people based upon the published media articles.

Well, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on research. You're free to dispute it naturally but this isn't some claim that was pulled out of nowhere. I understand what you're saying but I don't think your personal experience outweights the evidence presented here.

Our own contribution to debates about the 2016 election was to shine a light on the right- wing media ecosystem itself as the primary culprit in sowing confusion and distrust in the broader American media ecosystem. In the first two parts of this book we continue that work by documenting how the right- wing media ecosystem differs categorically from the rest of the media environment and how much more susceptible it has been to disinformation, lies, and half- truths. In short, we find that the influence in the right- wing media ecosystem, whether judged by hyperlinks, Twitter sharing, or Facebook sharing, is both highly skewed to the far right and highly insulated from other segments of the network, from center- right (which is nearly nonexistent) through the far left. We did not come to this work looking for a partisan- skewed explanation. As we began to analyze the millions of online stories, tweets, and Facebook sharing data points, the pattern that emerged was clear... there is no symmetry in the architecture and dynamics of communications within the right- wing media ecosystem and outside of it.

[NorseThing]

Okay, lets tke a look not at the data which is what it is, but the assumptions on where to find the data versus conclusions. The sources of the data are mainstream media accounts of issues and events. The conclusions are about right wing sided internet media coverage coupled with talk radio. Conclusions are not corresponding to the sources of the data.

I do not know of Yochai Benklerâ other than what I read involving this study. I assume he is sincere. http://bostonreview.net/politics/yoc...elling-outrage

Unfortunately, by the end of 2018, to describe what is going on as “radicalization,” as we do, is almost trite. The critical thing that we insist on when we use the word radicalization is that we are not talking just about the crazies. We have an insular right-wing media ecosystem (Fox News, Breitbart, the Washington Times, Daily Caller, and the Gateway Pundit, for example) that has spun out of control and created a propaganda feedback loop, in which what is true or false is entirely beside the point. Its defining characteristic is pushing content that reinforces identity and political in-group membership. To contrast, the left-wing media, which includes outlets such as Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and HuffPost, is part of a single media ecosystem, in which both producers and consumers of news pay attention to a diverse media diet primarily anchored in traditional mainstream media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and which stretches all the way to editorially conservative mainstream publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. In most cases, the left-wing outlets share the reporting and journalistic traditions of mainstream media, and even where they do not, they are constrained in how far they can stray from the truth by the fact that their audiences pay significant attention to these media. So the two wings of the media ecosystem are not operating under the same rules.

By his own words in the interview, I see nothing substantially different between between how Daily Kos handles its coverage from Fox News. My points still stand whether you discount my personal experiences versus the data collection or not. Without actual review of the raw data, we all must use some personal experience to temper the claim.

[Katsumoto]

By his own words in the interview, I see nothing substantially different between between how Daily Kos handles its coverage from Fox News. My points still stand whether you discount my personal experiences versus the data collection or not. Without actual review of the raw data, we all must use some personal experience to temper the claim.

I don't know what to tell you because the difference is made clear even in the text you've quoted. I can only suggest reading it again closely:

"We have an insular right-wing media ecosystem (Fox News, Breitbart, the Washington Times, Daily Caller, and the Gateway Pundit, for example) that has spun out of control and created a propaganda feedback loop, in which what is true or false is entirely beside the point. Its defining characteristic is pushing content that reinforces identity and political in-group membership. To contrast, the left-wing media, which includes outlets such as Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and HuffPost, is part of a single media ecosystem, in which both producers and consumers of news pay attention to a diverse media diet primarily anchored in traditional mainstream media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and which stretches all the way to editorially conservative mainstream publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. In most cases, the left-wing outlets share the reporting and journalistic traditions of mainstream media, and even where they do not, they are constrained in how far they can stray from the truth by the fact that their audiences pay significant attention to these media."

In other words, even if the Daily Kos was to make up a story, it would most likely be debunked or disputed by other media outlets in the mainstream media ecosystem (which is what happened with the story about Trump being a paedophile that the study explores) preventing it from spreading. Whereas on the right, this generally doesn't happen if the story reinforces 'identity and political in-group membership' - we get nonsense like Uranium One, the Clinton Pizza thing, the Deep State etc.

[Heathen Hammer]

There is no evidence of mainstream media denying or debunking false claims that go against its narratives. They either double-down on it (like Trump's decision to end illegal occupation of Syria and Afghanistan was interpreted as part of the whole "Russian collusion" nonsense), or they just sweep it under the rug and pretend like nothing happened (like that time 4chan made up "golden shower"story and got mainstream media to bite the bait).

[NorseThing]

Okay, lets go back to the beginning. The study has sources from which the research created a data base and then the authors drew results from the data. The resulting conclusions are not facts. The facts a the sources. This is the flaw with the study. They are mixing Talk radio with the internet and broadcast reporting / opinion. This is a skewed result that can only lead to their conclusion. Talk radio is an echo chamber. I do not need an ivy league study to discover this. I would agree that almost all of radio talk formats are this way and almost of of the formats are some stripe of conservative. But they should never have mixed radio (the talk format portion) into the mix with other broadcast (mainstream?) media. Maybe the authors of the study were not wanting bias to enter into the study, but bias was present before the first data was collected.

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

I wish to say that the subject of right-wing media, not following the rules of journalism, fearmongering and scapegoating is not new and has been an organic process ongoing for decades.
The press itself is nominally obliged to informe their readers with just facts, not opinions.

However, in the last 3-4 decades, the press, especially in Europe and the US, has seen a horrid decline in quality of content and integrity. The first sign of this is astrology, the first sign of any tabloid. Because astrology has not science supporting it whatsoever, on the contrary, this is the first sign that a newspaper is not sticking to its journalistic integrity. Why? They are attracting readers, and making money, by using people's insecurities and ignorance. Journalists are supposed to chase them away, not profit from them. An other signal: if a journal is not fully secular. The same reasons.
Over time, unfortunatly ownership of newspapers also mattered. What used to be at times either a company or a cooperative, nowadays is mostly in the hands of billionaires. The UK, is the most extreme case, with just Murdoch, controlling almost all the private press. In fact, after 1989 there was a legitimate suspicion on state-run media, however this stopped completly when it came to the private one. This is despite investigative journalism slowly dying and media moguls using newspapers for propaganda purposes(not informing about certain policies, but also smearing opponents and spreading lies). Again, as in an other thread I need to mention the Daily Mail, which has a lot of problematic articles, that indicated anti-democratic sympaties(such as one about Stalingrad, scaremongering about migrants, even plain lies during elections!). Even so called "moderate centrist" newspapers did the exact same: the New York Times, the Economist, the Guardian(just look up everything under the Corbyn or Labour tag, ever since 2015). It is not just the right-wing media doing it, it is almost the entire aparatus, from Breitbart to Euronews, from CNN to Fox News.

Example of bad journalism include: a negative attitude towards social movements that is always present, an unusual tollerance for the right-wing, even the far-right (why is the US far-right called the "alt-right" again? Also, why are nazis and fascists being called "(white) ethno-nationalists"?), a fanatical dedication to the ideas of a free-market, contempt for democracy and voters(which gets used as scapegoats, even when the fault lied with the politicians responsible for it). This can clearly be seen in the term "populism". The term itself is historically loaded as it was used by aristocratic roman officials to smear progressives as demagogues. The ideas itself, that everyone who wants the people to have a say is bad, is profoundly undemocratic. In fact, the liberal critique focused on this, EXACTLY to demobilise people. There were a lot of other more legitminate and effective ways to criticise the far-right(such as its basic hatred for democracy and egalitarianism). However, the populist critique is exactly what empowered the far-right. The tollerant tone, ended up legitimising their platforms further.

Right-wing ideas, has spent in some countries decades in a quite priviledges position, even whilst railing against a perceived priviledged far-left(which turned out to be the right-wing liberals). In the US, the fact that the KKK was always legal and could march even in 1998 (on taxpayer money mind you) is quite telling. In fact, the US never took any concrete steps to tackle redicalisation by the far-right media. Fox news and Alex Jones were allowed to operate for years.
In the UK, after Thatcher and especially after Blair, almost all political parties were de-facto right-wing. It is even more concerning how newspapers like the Daily Mail were left to operate for decades, even whilst they used misleading titles, inflated news and fake scaremongering articles. In Italy, Berlusconi ran for prime minister, whilst owning several TV chanells, which he used for propaganda and xenophobic scaremongering(this was 10 years before Trump won).
This radicalisation did not come out of nowhere, the liberal media that now is at war with the likes of Breitbart, allowed it to happen. I suspect that it was the case due to an almost worldwide moral panic after 2008, as anti-capitalist social movements were seen en masse, in different countries, for the first time since 1989. I described it before in this post. But, this is the result, of ignoring the will of the people, trying to discredit the idea of sovereignity of the people, agressively pushing a free-market agenda and leftover from the Cold War paranoia, which associated anything pro-democracy or progressive with the USSR (I will refrain from mentioning the democratic governments toppled by the US in order to stop progressive reforms and protect the profits of its multinationals).
That Cold War mindset had reemerged in 2008, first in the far-right then spreading all the way till the liberals. It is a panic at people rejecting neo-liberalism and capitalism. It is because, for the first time in over a decade, there was an alternative to neo-liberalism. The actions of the leadership of the Parti Socialist(switching sides with Macron rather than suppor a social-democratic candidate elected by their party), the Democrats and Republicans(moving more and more right since Johnson stepped down and croock Nixon won, doing their best to discretic Bernie, Cortez and more, than turning on each other), in the UK (everyone ganging up on Corbyn worse than they ever did on Farrage, Cameron or May), Spain (demands from social movements consistently ignored, until Podemos emerged and abbandoned most of them and still they call them radical), Greece (ideology did not matter as long as austerity got implemented, the national government under economical blackmail), Germany(tolerating and supporting xenophobia if need be, declaring martial law in Hamburg for a month due to a botched eviction of an anarchist centre, no police when fascists march on Chemnitz, or Karl Marx Stadt). It is telling why there is this radicalisation: cause those in power tolleranted it, cause the "right" and "centre" are both in cahoots and big fans of the market. Today's liberals resemble more their 19th century counterparts than the same parties only 40 years ago. "Social-democracy", especially in Europe now is barelly distinguishable from neoliberalism. Look at the SDP in Germany, or PSOE(a pro-monarchy "social-democratic" party in Spain, who supported austerity).
The far-right is just the vanguard, of about 50 years of governmental and elite neglect of democracy, the welfare system and of promoting anti-democratic ideas in the name of fighting Communism. This reckless and predatory behaivious continued long after 1989. Now we are reaping the consequences for their errors and greed

[Love Mountain]

Please tell me about this "quality" journalism of the past and how it compares to today. Otherwise all it sounds like is nostalgia through rose-tinted glasses.

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

Your reply is very rude Sukiyama, but I will entertain you:
1: UK:
-Deficit debate(2008-2011): very much skewed towards austerity. Most newspapers were blatantly partisan, including publc TV posts such as the BBC
-Corbyn bashing(2015-today): almost every single newspaper piling on him. Weaponised anti-semitism to shut down criticism of Israel and score political points, done whilst letting the more xenophobic Tories(Borin Johnson ffs). Leaking memos and smearing right after Labour Commons victories(such as the resignation of Ian Duncan Smith). Interviewing almost only "anonymous" labour sources, which is only of the right-wing of the party. The guardian, the Independent, BBC, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail. Comfirmed by the London School of Economics.
-Immigrant scaremongering done by Murdoch associated papers(Daily Mail, Telegraph)
-Brexit reporting, a shoddy affair of name-calling, on both sides
-Scottish referendum, same as Brexit:scaremongering and name-calling
2: US:
-Fox News: do I need to say more?
-Washington post, The New York Times...from unmasking Nixon to hating on Bernie for no good reason. In fact, the coverage of the primaries in 2016: lots of free publicity for Trump, Bernie gets only the leftover air. And for someone commimted to democracy and a newcommer, he got treated worse than Clinton(who had soem Middle East ups and supported the Saudis) or Trump(incredibly rude, dishonest and toxic). Clinton was even presented as the only Democratic alternative
-Both republican and democratic alligned media: free healthcare is called socialised, at time socialism. The far-right keeps being called with minimising terms like "alt-right". Soft language used even for nazis and fascists as "ethno nationalists"
-The contant indignation at broken windows during protests, but not at what drove the protests or responses to protest. (for example, Charlottesville. )
-Still, still attacking anything to the left like it's the cold war. This being done whilst the far-right enjoys ample coverage, publicity and minimisation. I did not see too many articles against the far-right, even after Charlottesville, or after a nazi nutjob shot up a synagogued. A lot of obsessions with ANTIFA(random local guys supposed to keep fascism in check when no one else does so), a lot of obsessions with far-right on campuses
-Scaremongering in general and against good things: universities, vaccines, healthcare(anyone remembers Obamacare scaremongering?)
3: France:
-I think we already saw the pro-Macron bias, especially since he was received more friendly cover than the offcial candidate of the Parti Socialist, Hammon
-Helping Macron use the Strassbourg attacks to score cheap political points against the yellow vests
4:Europe(+US)
-anti-Occupy and 15m bashing. In some countries, like Romania, accusations of violence from the protests were regularly made when there was no violence
-Refugee scaremongering: overreporting on immigrant crimes and writing them off as refugees even when they are not. Bogus "replacement theories", or "invasions" as numbers are exagerated
-Complete media silence on Iceland arresting its bankers(2009-2012 if I remember well)
-Contant anti-Venezuela propaganda: I would not call it propaganda if they would criticise Maduro for corruption and betraying his own ideals, not "socialism". Also, the Trump sponsored opposition(not MUD) is even worse, incredibly anti-democratic. I met them irl. Do not wish to see the again
-Everyone piling on SYRIZA when it was their first time in power. I mean, the party got its first over 10% vote share after 2008. Simply for their ideology and questioning what was going on they got smeared a lot. Almost no articles on the Thesaloniki pledges.
in the before they came to power(cannot quite remember the year but economic scaremongering if SYRIZA won)
-Brexit scaremongering whilst never actually covering its significance, consequences and scenarios(mostly UK)

5:General:
-concentration of media ownership in the hands of mostly right-wing millionaires
-shift from information and membersip based media to one based on advertisements, cookies and views
-misleading titles and subtitles(UK press is the worst example)
-unprofessional design with at times big flashy titles
-ad-wall articles(a new low)
-misleading "anti-communism" from the cold war being recycled to attack the democratic left(especially in the US, can be clearly seen on the Internet. PragerU, Sargon...etc. Also offical media, scaremongering opinion polls of capitalism vs comminism that gets misinterpreted). This hurts me as someone comming from the Iron Courtain region and who quite likes democracy.
-opinion pieces disguised as actual articles
-death of most investigative journalism
-Why do many newspapers have their economy section either mostly about bussiness, or just titles bussiness(so, GINI, GDP evolution, government policies, comparative labour laws analysis...etc. nothing)

6:Russia: Nothing changed except they switched out atheism and marxism-leninism for religion coated nationalism
7: Social media:
-money first bussiness model facilitated a lot of xenophobia, misleading claims and more. On facebook Alex Jones and more had a booming career. There is currently an entire far-right network on youtube.
Most of it is sponsored of paid content.
-censoring a lot of images of hurt animals to appease animal lovers, but letting the far-right continue
-giving coverage to trolls such as Milo, taking them seriously and treating misleading statements as facts

This is the tip of the iceberb. If this thread keeps going, in precisely 3 weeks I will write more details.

[Aexodus]

Interviewing almost only "anonymous" labour sources, which is only of the right-wing of the party.

Don’t mean to be a devils advocate but Labour doesn’t have a right wing.

Contant anti-Venezuela propaganda: I would not call it propaganda if they would criticise Maduro for corruption and betraying his own ideals, not "socialism".

In fairness they would have criticised Portugal for their Fascism, I don’t see a problem with criticising extreme politics.

[The spartan]

There is no evidence of mainstream media denying or debunking false claims that go against its narratives. They either double-down on it (like Trump's decision to end illegal occupation of Syria and Afghanistan was interpreted as part of the whole "Russian collusion" nonsense), or they just sweep it under the rug and pretend like nothing happened (like that time 4chan made up "golden shower"story and got mainstream media to bite the bait).

Apparently you missed the part of the thread that talked about how what you are considering "mainstream media" was more resilient to made up nonsense stories than "citizen journalists". The case and point in the article; the internet rumor that Trump has raped a 13 year old girl was never taken seriously in most media. Nor was James O'Keefe's attempt to sting the WaPo with a fake Roy Moore rape story. So apparently they have some standards and don't just drop everything to accommodate any crazy story.

[DaVinci]

Theme network propaganda.

A current but not so new "cute" case of right-populist german party AfD fake accounts in the net, mainly Facebook: "probably around 200.000 fake accounts".

See https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute...check-100.html
... newsworthy because due to the very soon upcoming EU election (26th May, 2019).

But check search word "afd fake account": https://www.google.com/search?q=afd+...JMn3kwWE_o6ABg ... which show that it is not really new, but a propaganda tool by the party.

It's all german language pages, but i guess, there will be soon also english sites, which report about it, as the current case is an US study by Trevor Davis. His study speaks of a very unique case with the AfD party using such an amount of fake accounts.