# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
great britain withdrawal from eu (brexit)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To Understand 'Brexit,' Look to Britain's Tabloids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite their falling circulations and tarnished reputations, tabloids maintain a striking grip on power as Britain prepares to cut ties with the European Union.

# data[].attributes.body
Africa

Ageing

AIDS

Atomic Energy

Children

Climate Change

Decolonization

Democracy

Food

Health

Human Rights

International Law and Justice

Oceans and the Law of the Sea

Peace and Security

Population

Refugees

Water

Women

# data[].attributes.body
Use mind maps (bubbl.us) and try to make connections to the different topics. Write down key words and possible quotes from reliable sources.

# data[].attributes.body
Make research and quotes based on these topics. Great starting point for research!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where media fails on the reporting of migrants and refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report highlights mistakes - and some malevolence - in the coverage of the crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Europe's Media Covered the Migration Crisis | University of Oxford

# data[].attributes.headline
Causes and Effects - 2016 Presidential election

# data[].attributes.subject
Causes and Effects - 2016 Presidential election

# data[].attributes.body
"working-class white people, particularly ones without college education - men and women - deserted the party in droves. Rural voters turned out in high numbers, as the Americans who felt overlooked by the establishment and left behind by the coastal elite made their voices heard."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump has defied all expectations from the very start of his presidential campaign more than a year ago.

Very few people thought he would actually run, then he did. They thought he wouldn't climb in the polls, then he did. They said he wouldn't win any primaries, then he did. They said he wouldn't win the Republican nomination, then he did.

Finally, they said there was no way he could compete for, let alone win, a general election.

Now he's President-elect Trump.

Here are five ways he pulled off what was unexpected by most and incomprehensible to many.

Trump's white wave

Toss-ups were tossed aside. One after another, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina went to Mr Trump.

That left Mrs Clinton's blue firewall, and the firewall was eventually breached.

The Democrat's last stand largely rested on her strength in the Midwest. Those were states that had gone Democrat for decades, based in part on the support of black and working-class white voters.

Those working-class white people, particularly ones without college education - men and women - deserted the party in droves. Rural voters turned out in high numbers, as the Americans who felt overlooked by the establishment and left behind by the coastal elite made their voices heard.

While places like Virginia and Colorado held fast, Wisconsin fell - and with it Mrs Clinton's presidential hopes.

When all is said and done, Mrs Clinton may end up winning the popular vote on the back of strong support in places like California and New York and closer-than-expected losses in solid-red states like Utah.

The Trump wave hit in the places it had to, however. And it hit hard.

Teflon Donald

Mr Trump insulted decorated war veteran John McCain.

He picked a fight with Fox News and its popular presenter, Megyn Kelly.

He doubled down when asked how he once mocked the weight of a Hispanic beauty pageant winner.

He offered a half-hearted apology when the secret video surfaced of his boasting about making unwanted sexual advances towards women.

He gaffed his way through the three presidential debates with clearly lightly practised performances.

None of it mattered. While he took dips in the polls following some of the more outrageous incidents, his approval was like a cork - eventually bouncing back to the surface.

Perhaps the various controversies came so hard and fast that none had time to draw blood. Maybe Mr Trump's personality and appeal was so strong, the scandals just bounced off. Whatever the reason, he was bulletproof.

The outsider

He ran against the Democrats. He also ran against the powers within his own party.

He beat them all.

Mr Trump built a throne of skulls out of his Republican primary opponents. Some, like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Ben Carson, eventually bent knee. The holdouts, like Jeb Bush and Ohio Governor John Kasich, are now on the outside of their party looking in.

And for the rest of the party insiders, from House Speaker Paul Ryan on down? Mr Trump didn't need their help - and, in fact, may have won because he was willing to take a stand against them.

Mr Trump's pox-on-them-all attitude is likely to have proved his independence and outsider status at a time when much of the American public reviled Washington (although not enough to keep them from re-electing most congressional incumbents running for re-election).

It was a mood some other national politicians sensed - Democrat Bernie Sanders, for instance, as well as Mr Cruz. No one, however, captured it more than Trump, and it won him the White House.

The Comey Factor

The polls clearly did a woeful job predicting the shape and preferences of the electorate, particularly in Midwestern states. In the final days of the campaign, however, the reality is that the polls were close enough that Mr Trump had a pathway to victory.

That pathway didn't look nearly as obvious about two weeks ago, before FBI director James Comey released his letter announcing that they were reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

True, the polls were tightening a bit, but Mr Trump's sharpest rise in the standings came in the weeks between that first letter and Mr Comey's second, in which he said he had put the investigation back on the shelf.

It seems likely that during that period, Mr Trump was able to successfully consolidate his base, bringing wayward conservatives back into the fold and shredding Mrs Clinton's hopes of offering a compelling closing message to US voters.

Of course, Mr Comey's actions never would have been a factor if Mrs Clinton had decided to rely on State Department email servers for her work correspondence. That one is on her shoulders.

Trusted his instincts

Mr Trump ran the most unconventional of political campaigns, but it turned out he knew better than all the experts.

He spent more on hats than on pollsters. He travelled to states like Wisconsin and Michigan that pundits said were out of reach.

He held massive rallies instead of focusing on door-knocking and get-out-the-vote operations.

He had a disjointed, sometimes chaotic national political convention that was capped by an acceptance speech that was more doom-and-gloom than any in modern US political history.

He was vastly outspent by the Clinton campaign, just as he was during the Republican primaries. He turned consensus wisdom about how to win the presidency on its head.

All of these decisions - and many more - were roundly ridiculed in "knowledgeable" circles.

In the end, however, they worked. Mr Trump and his closest confidants - his children and a few chosen advisers - will have the last laugh. And they'll do it from the White House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump has defied all expectations from the very start of his presidential campaign more than a year ago. Very few people thought he would actually run, then he did. They thought he wouldn't climb in the polls, then he did. They said he wouldn't win any primaries, then he did.

# data[].attributes.body
"Measured by the way it votes, Scotland has been tacking away from the rest of the UK at least since the 1980s. But the divergence has never looked as stark as it did the morning after the EU referendum. Not one of Scotland's 32 electoral regions voted to leave."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A decision by voters last June to end the UK's membership of the European Union has put the spotlight back on Scotland's constitutional future. So what now for the country? Allan Little looks at some of the big questions needing big answers.

Look at the map. The results of the Brexit referendum make the island of Britain look like two quite distinct countries - voting for different values, embracing different, indeed mutually-hostile, visions of the future.

Measured by the way it votes, Scotland has been tacking away from the rest of the UK at least since the 1980s. But the divergence has never looked as stark as it did the morning after the EU referendum. Not one of Scotland's 32 electoral regions voted to leave.

The SNP believes the mandate for a second referendum on independence is solid: a UK outside the EU is not the UK that a majority of Scots voted to stay in in 2014.

But putting the question to the public as early as 2018 or even 2019 carries huge risks for Nicola Sturgeon. Many nationalists remain confident that the long-term direction of travel is towards independence. It is driven in part by age demographics: the younger you are, the more likely you are to favour an independent Scotland.

The polls, though, have not shown a dramatic change in the level of support for independence: the question still divides the country roughly 50-50.

Ideally, the first minister would be looking for support for independence to rise perhaps to 60% and for that to be sustained and stable over many months before putting the question again. That doesn't seem likely in the short term. There hasn't been an indisputable "post-Brexit bounce" for the independence argument.

And to lose a second referendum so soon after the last one would surely close the question for the foreseeable future.

Brexit also changes the independence proposition. There could be no rerun of the 2014 case in all its fine detail. Brexit puts us in new territory.

Watch the documentary "Europe: Scotland's Dilemma" on the iPlayer

Take the question of the border. The "No" campaign last time raised the spectre of passport controls at Gretna Green and customs checks on the Tweed. There wasn't much credibility in this argument - though it undoubtedly scared many.

Back then, the proposition was that both Scotland and the UK would be inside the EU single market, where there is free movement of goods services, capital and people.

That will not be the case when the question is put next time. If Scotland stays in the EU, or enters as a new member, while the rest of the UK is outside, will a border descend across the island of Britain for the first time since 1707? No one knows. The question has scarcely even been asked, never mind answered.

The border question is hypothetical for Scotland, but it's real and urgent for Ireland. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will soon become the border between the UK and a trading block of 27 member states that stretches all the way to the Black Sea.

What currency might an independent Scotland have?

Once Britain is importing goods from around the world, goods that might not meet EU import rules, how do you stop those goods that have come to Britain from around the world moving across that border and into the EU single market? The other 27, eager to protect their own producers from unfair competition, will want an answer to that before agreeing to a Brexit deal.

Both Britain and Ireland say they want to keep that border open. No one yet knows how that can be achieved. But if it is achieved, it would create a precedent for Scotland.

Glasgow-based Irish journalist and academic Peter Geoghegan says: "There's an awareness growing that a solution for Northern Ireland could also have ramifications in Scotland.

"If a solution is found that keeps that border open, then a pro-independence campaign would be able to say - well you did it for Northern Ireland, why can't you do it for Scotland?"

Two further obstacles loom large in the building of a new independence case: the currency and the deficit. What currency would an independent Scotland use now that sharing the pound would surely no longer be an option? And how would Scotland seek to close the gap, in the first few years of independence, between what the country spends and what it raises in taxation.

Nicola Sturgeon told me: "I absolutely accept... that in the context of another independence referendum. Those of us who advocate independence have a duty to answer those questions. And that includes issues around economic sustainability and security and around the currency.

" You'll think I'm being difficult but I'm not going to jump and get into detailed discussions just now."

But if the risks of going too soon for Ms Sturgeon are too high, think how Brexit also changes the "Better Together" proposition.

Defending the Union next time round will be quite different too.

Look at the map again. Amid much pro-Brexit talk of "the will of the people", the pro-Union campaign will be open to the charge that they are perfectly ready to disregard the will of the Scottish people in the interests of keeping the UK together; that it is, in effect, right and proper that Scotland's democratically-expressed desire to stay in the EU should be disregarded and overlooked because Britain as a whole voted to stay out.

Who is risking what?

Good luck with arguing - against that new stark reality - that the Union is a partnership of equals, as David Cameron did in 2014.

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, disputes this.

She says: "It puts the SNP, not us, in the difficult position because they will have to argue that it's wrong for Scotland to send 59 MPs to Westminster, where they're ignored, and that instead we should be sending six MEPs to sit in a [European] parliament of 700 members, where somehow they'll have a much greater say over what's happening."

The UK government has already agreed that it would be wrong for Scotland to face another vote before the terms of Brexit are known, because this would be, in the words of the prime minister, "voting blind", even though voting blind on Brexit is precisely what the government she was a prominent member of asked us to do last June.

And they will have to argue, simultaneously, that leaving a trading block and single market with its largest and closest neighbour is the height of folly in Scotland's case, but represents exciting and bold new opportunities in the case of the EU.

The UK that the pro-Union campaign asked us to stay inside was governed by a pro-EU coalition. It will be much easier for the independence campaign, next time round, to argue that the real nationalists - the real separatists if you like - are not in Scotland at all, but in control at Westminster. That too is quite new.

Will there be a referendum in the next two years? Constitutionally, Theresa May has the legal right to block it. And the polls certainly suggest that many view the prospect of a new fight on the constitution with weary scepticism.

But the risks are obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the last 40 years of political history in Scotland.

In 1979, a pro-devolution campaign could scarcely muster sufficient public support for a weak, largely toothless Scottish Assembly. In that first referendum, a little over a third voted yes, a little under a third voted no, and a third stayed at home. Just 18 years later, there was overwhelming public support not just for an assembly but for a full Scottish parliament with primary legislative powers.

What brought about that change in public sentiment is obvious: a sense that Westminster was imposing on Scotland unpopular policies for which there was little, and steadily diminishing, support in Scotland, and for which there was, in the parlance of the day, "no mandate".

Successive UK governments, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, argued that there was indeed a mandate, and that its was based on the popular will as expressed across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Theresa May's government is walking that path again - this is what Britain voted for, so Scotland must live with it. The risks are surely clear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What impact might Brexit have on Scotland's future? - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Look at the map. The results of the Brexit referendum make the island of Britain look like two quite distinct countries - voting for different values, embracing different, indeed mutually-hostile, visions of the future. Measured by the way it votes, Scotland has been tacking away from the rest of the UK at least since the 1980s.

# data[].attributes.body
"In the final three months of the US presidential campaign, the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others, a BuzzFeed News analysis has found".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the final three months of the US presidential campaign, the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others, a BuzzFeed News analysis has found.

During these critical months of the campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.

Within the same time period, the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. (This analysis focused on the top performing link posts for both groups of publishers, and not on total site engagement on Facebook. For details on how we identified and analyzed the content, see the bottom of this post. View our data here.)

Up until those last three months of the campaign, the top election content from major outlets had easily outpaced that of fake election news on Facebook. Then, as the election drew closer, engagement for fake content on Facebook skyrocketed and surpassed that of the content from major news outlets.

"I'm troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat fake news," said Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College who researches political misinformation and fact-checking. "Even if they did not swing the election, the evidence is clear that bogus stories have incredible reach on the network. Facebook should be fighting misinformation, not amplifying it."

A Facebook spokesman told BuzzFeed News that the top stories don't reflect overall engagement on the platform.

"There is a long tail of stories on Facebook," the spokesman said. "It may seem like the top stories get a lot of traction, but they represent a tiny fraction of the total."

He also said that native video, live content, and image posts from major news outlets saw significant engagement on Facebook.

Of the 20 top-performing false election stories identified in the analysis, all but three were overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton. Two of the biggest false hits were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump, which the site removed after publication of this article. The only viral false stories during the final three months that were arguably against Trump's interests were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American "refugees" fleeing Trump, and a hoax claiming RuPaul said he was groped by Trump.

This new data illustrates the power of fake election news on Facebook, and comes as the social network deals with criticism that it allowed false content to run rampant during the 2016 presidential campaign. CEO Mark Zuckerberg said recently it was "a pretty crazy idea" to suggest that fake news on Facebook helped sway the election. He later published a post saying, "We have already launched work enabling our community to flag hoaxes and fake news, and there is more we can do here."

This week BuzzFeed News reported that a group of Facebook employees have formed a task force to tackle the issue, with one saying that "fake news ran wild on our platform during the entire campaign season." The Wall Street Journal also reported that Google would begin barring fake news websites from its AdSense advertising program. Facebook soon followed suit.

These developments follow a study by BuzzFeed News that revealed hyperpartisan Facebook pages and their websites were publishing false or misleading content at an alarming rate - and generating significant Facebook engagement in the process. The same was true for the more than 100 US politics websites BuzzFeed News found being run out of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

This new analysis of election content found two false election stories from a Macedonian sites that made the top-10 list in terms of Facebook engagement int he final three months. Conservative State published a story that falsely quoted Hillary Clinton as saying, "I would like to see people like Donald Trump run for office; they're honest and can't be bought." The story generated over 481,000 engagements on Facebook. A second false story from a Macedonia site falsely claimed that Clinton was about to be indicted. It received 149,000 engagements on Facebook.

All the false news stories identified in BuzzFeed News' analysis came from either fake news websites that only publish hoaxes or from hyperpartisan websites that present themselves as publishing real news. The research turned up only one viral false election story from a hyperpartisan left-wing site. The story from Winning Democrats claimed Ireland was accepting anti-Trump "refugees" from the US. It received over 810,000 Facebook engagements, and was debunked by an Irish publication. (There was also one post from an LGBTQ site that used a false quote from Trump in its headline.)

The other false viral election stories from hyperpartisan sites came from right-wing publishers, according to the analysis.

One example is the remarkably successful, utterly untrustworthy site Ending the Fed. It was responsible for four of the top 10 false election stories identified in the analysis: Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS, Hillary Clinton being disqualified from holding federal office, and the FBI director receiving millions from the Clinton Foundation. These four stories racked up a total of roughly 2,953,000 Facebook engagements in the three months leading up to Election Day.

Ending the Fed gained notoriety in August when Facebook promoted its story about Megyn Kelly being fired by Fox News as a top trending item. The strong engagement the site has seen on Facebook may help explain how one of its stories was featured in the Trending box.

The site, which does not publicly list an owner or editor, did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed News.

Like several other hyperpartisan right-wing sites that scored big Facebook hits this election season, Ending the Fed is a relatively new website. The domain endingthefed.com was only registered in in March. Yet according to BuzzFeed News' analysis, its top election content received more Facebook engagement than stories from the Washington Post and New York Times. For example, the top four election stories from the Post generated roughly 2,774,000 Facebook engagements - nearly 180,000 fewer than Ending the Fed' s top four false posts.

A look at Ending the Fed's traffic ranking chart from Alexa also gives an indication of the massive growth it experienced as the election drew close:

A similar spike occurred for Conservative State, a site that was only registered in September. It saw its traffic rank on Alexa spike almost instantly:

Alexa estimates that nearly 30% of Conservative State' s traffic comes from Facebook, with 10% coming from Google.

Along with unreliable hyperpartisan blogs, fake news sites also received a big election traffic bump in line with their Facebook success. The Burrard Street Journal scored nearly 380,000 Facebook engagements for a fake story about Obama saying he will not leave office if Trump is elected. It was published in September, right around the time Alexa notched a noticeable uptick in its traffic ranking:

That site was only registered in April of this year. Its publisher disputes the idea that its content is aimed at misleading readers. "The BS Journal is a satire news publication and makes absolutely no secret of that or any attempt to purposely mislead our readers," he told BuzzFeed News.

Large news sites also generated strong Facebook engagement for links to their election stories. But to truly find the biggest election hits from these 19 major sites, it's necessary to go back to early 2016.

The three biggest election hits for these outlets came back in February, led by a contributor post on the Huffington Post's blog about Donald Trump that received 2,200,000 engagements on Facebook. The top-performing election news story on Facebook for the 19 outlets analyzed was also published that month by CBS News. It generated an impressive 1.7 million shares, engagements, and comments on Facebook. Overall, a significant number of the top-performing posts on Facebook from major outlets were opinion pieces, rather than news stories.

The biggest mainstream hit in the three months prior to the election came from the Washington Post and had 876,000 engagements. Yet somehow Ending the Fed - a site launched just months earlier with no history on Facebook and likely a very small group of people running it - managed to get more engagement for a false story during that same period.

"People know there are concerned employees who are seeing something here which they consider a big problem," a Facebook manager told BuzzFeed News this week. "And it doesn't feel like the people making decisions are taking the concerns seriously."
How We Gathered the Data

BuzzFeed News used the content analysis tool BuzzSumo, which enables users to search for content by keyword, URL, time range, and social share counts. BuzzFeed News searched in BuzzSumo using keywords such as "Hillary Clinton" and "Donald Trump," as well as combinations such as "Trump and election" or "Clinton and emails" to see the top stories about these topics according to Facebook engagement. We also searched for known viral lies such as "Soros and voting machine."

In addition, created lists of the URLs of known fake news websites, of hyperpartisan sites on the right and on the left, and of the more than 100 pro-Trump sites run from Macedonia that were previously identified in BuzzFeed News reporting. We then looked for the top performing content on Facebook across all of these sites to find false stories about the election.

We conducted our searches in three-month segments beginning 9 months from election day. This broke down as February to April, May to July, and August to election day.

Even with the above approaches, it's entirely possible that we missed other big hits from fake news websites and hyperpartisan blogs.

To examine the performance of election content from mainstream sites, we created a list that included the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News, USA Today, Politico, CNN, Wall Street Journal, CBS News, ABC News, New York Daily News, New York Post, BuzzFeed, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The Guardian, Vox, Business Insider, Huffington Post, and Fox News. We then searched for their top-performing election content in the same three-month segments as above.

It's important to note that Facebook engagement does not necessarily translate into traffic. This analysis was focused on how the best-performing fake news about the election compared with real news from major outlets on Facebook. It's entirely possible - and likely - that the mainstream sites received more traffic to their top-performing Facebook content than the fake news sites did. As as the Facebook spokesman noted, large news sites overall see more engagement on Facebook than fake news sites.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the final three months of the US presidential campaign, the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others, a BuzzFeed News analysis has found.

# data[].attributes.body
"To what degree the overall proliferation of fake news affected the election results remains unclear. But it almost certainly did have some impact, particularly on undecided voters"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Honest Truth about Fake News ... and How Not to Fall for It (with Lesson Plan) | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California.