I agree, and I can't imagine how much Chomsky is cringing about it right now[0]. But the sad truth is that psychological phenomena only become identifiable by t

I agree, and I can't imagine how much Chomsky is cringing about it right now[0]. But the sad truth is that psychological phenomena only become identifiable by the general public once they've entered our lexicon under catchy names, i.e. 'fake news'. I recently help but couldn't feel confused why 'fake news' is a new concept to people; why is everyone going on about it when (as you say) we've been subject to propaganda for as long as we can remember? I think it largely comes down to social media and how (as other commenters have pointed out) its utterly widespread use only now warrants the spread of misinformation as 'propaganda' — because it reaches so many people these days. The Internet™ was — to a layman — seen as ubiquitous with truth and objectivity... and now that it suddenly (well, duh) transpires that our social network feeds are chock-full of misleading content from untrustworthy sources — everyone's going nuts about it. [0] - http://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/noam-chomsky-you-cant-educate-yourself-by-looking-things-up-online_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/noam-chomsky-you-cant-educat... --Edit, added Chomsky source, as proof-of-cringe