5 ms·

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20n... Google trends closely follows t

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20n... Google trends closely follows the usage of the word in the media.

JoshMnem 9y ago
There were many articles about it before that. It was a constant topic of conversation in some circles. The reason the Trends chart jumps after the election is because that's when the larger public learned about what is going on, and people were trying to figure out how it happened. Pre-election examples from a quick search: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300742-trumps-son-tweets-fake-news-story-about-paid-protesters http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/30074... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-... http://meta.mk/en/macedonians-from-veles-open-propaganda-web-portals-to-work-in-favour-for-donald-trump/ http://meta.mk/en/macedonians-from-veles-open-propaganda-web... http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-plague/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-pla... http://fortune.com/2016/10/12/facebook-fake-news/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/12/facebook-fake-news/ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/296211-facebook-steps-up-fight-against-fake-news http://thehill.com/policy/technology/296211-facebook-steps-u... and countless more...
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  There were some articles before november. Very few. There was a deluge after.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    Probably for the reason I mentioned.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      No, the larger public learned about it in November because that's when the Democratic party aligned media (e.g. CNN, CNBC) suddenly considered it headline news. Look at that google trends spike. Did that look natural? They picked two stories for explaining the loss and pushed them extremely hard - this and the Russian conspiracy stuff. Both stories share one salient characteristic - if both were reason for the election loss, neither the Democratic party nor Hillary could be blamed for it. It is unlikely that news media that aligns with and donates money to the Democratic party are going to run stories about how Hillary was a terrible candidate who shouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place any more than Fox News might suddenly start supporting Democrats one day.
    - JoshMnem 9y ago
      There is no reply link on your comment, so I'll reply here. Fake news was a huge issue before the election. People I know were discussing it daily. Of course the Democratic Party talked about it after the election. What else would be expected? Many people who were paying attention were talking about it before that as well. You should read those articles I posted. The Democratic Party and its candidate had problems, but that doesn't diminish the role of fake news.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Fake%20n... Google trends closely follows the usage of the word in the media.

JoshMnem 9y ago

There were many articles about it before that. It was a constant topic of conversation in some circles. The reason the Trends chart jumps after the election is because that's when the larger public learned about what is going on, and people were trying to figure out how it happened. Pre-election examples from a quick search: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300742-trumps-son-tweets-fake-news-story-about-paid-protesters http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/30074... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-... http://meta.mk/en/macedonians-from-veles-open-propaganda-web-portals-to-work-in-favour-for-donald-trump/ http://meta.mk/en/macedonians-from-veles-open-propaganda-web... http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-plague/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/30/media/facebook-fake-news-pla... http://fortune.com/2016/10/12/facebook-fake-news/ http://fortune.com/2016/10/12/facebook-fake-news/ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/296211-facebook-steps-up-fight-against-fake-news http://thehill.com/policy/technology/296211-facebook-steps-u... and countless more...

crdoconnor 9y ago
There were some articles before november. Very few. There was a deluge after.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Probably for the reason I mentioned.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    No, the larger public learned about it in November because that's when the Democratic party aligned media (e.g. CNN, CNBC) suddenly considered it headline news. Look at that google trends spike. Did that look natural? They picked two stories for explaining the loss and pushed them extremely hard - this and the Russian conspiracy stuff. Both stories share one salient characteristic - if both were reason for the election loss, neither the Democratic party nor Hillary could be blamed for it. It is unlikely that news media that aligns with and donates money to the Democratic party are going to run stories about how Hillary was a terrible candidate who shouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place any more than Fox News might suddenly start supporting Democrats one day.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    There is no reply link on your comment, so I'll reply here. Fake news was a huge issue before the election. People I know were discussing it daily. Of course the Democratic Party talked about it after the election. What else would be expected? Many people who were paying attention were talking about it before that as well. You should read those articles I posted. The Democratic Party and its candidate had problems, but that doesn't diminish the role of fake news.