Half of Trump voters think the Bowling Green Massacre is real. Blame Kellyanne Conway, not Facebook.

Do you think the Bowling Green Massacre justifies President Trump’s travel ban?

If you’re reading this, the odds are very high that you don’t, since you know that the Bowling Green Massacre is not a thing. It never happened.

But half of Trump voters do think the nonexistent massacre is a good justification for Trump’s executive order.

That’s per a new poll from Public Policy Polling, which asked voters this question: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘The Bowling Green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.’”

And got this result, based on the candidate respondents voted for last fall:

If this kind of disconnect between Trump voters and reality sounds familiar, there’s a reason: Late last year, PPP asked people if they believed in Pizzagate, the (not true) conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was connected to a (nonexistent) child-sex ring run out of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant. Half of Trump voters thought that one was true, or could be true.

The big difference here is that Pizzagate was a story birthed by the internet and distributed widely by Facebook, which made it a good example of the social network’s ability to misinform the public.

But you can’t blame the Bowling Green Massacre on Mark Zuckerberg, or Macedonian teenagers gaming his system, or any other part of the internet. This one came to us the old-fashioned way: From a government official, via TV news.

As you know, because you read the news, Trump counselor/not-official spokesperson Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about the BGM during a Feb. 2 interview.

Matthews didn’t pick up on the nonexistent thing during the interview, but the internet took care of it for him, led by Insider Louisville’s Joe Sonka, who immediately flagged it on Twitter:

Which led to lots of (well-deserved) ridicule for Conway, who claimed she misspoke, which was also not true — she had cited the same nonexistent event in at least two other interviews.

So here’s a case where the internet is a great light-bringer, just like many of us thought it would be — not a great obfuscator, as many of us decided it had become last fall. Perhaps the problem isn’t the internet, or social media, but something else.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via