skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313721acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What happened? The Spread of Fake News Publisher Content During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The spread of content produced by fake news publishers was one of the most discussed characteristics of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and focus of such content, how its prevalence changed over time, and how this prevalence related to important election dynamics. In this paper, we address these questions using tweets that mention the two presidential candidates sampled at the daily level, the news content mentioned in such tweets, and open-ended responses from nationally representative telephone interviews. The results of our analysis highlight various important lessons for news consumers and journalists. We find that (i.) traditional news producers outperformed fake news producers in aggregate, (ii.) the prevalence of content produced by fake news publishers increased over the course of the campaign-particularly among tweets that mentioned Clinton, and (iii.) changes in such prevalence were closely following changes in net Clinton favorability. Turning to content, we (iv.) identify similarities and differences in agenda setting by fake and traditional news media and show that (v.) information individuals most commonly reported to having read, seen or heard about the candidates was more closely aligned with content produced by fake news outlets than traditional news outlets, in particular for information Republican voters retained about Clinton. We also model fake-ness of retained information as a function of demographics characteristics. Implications for platform owners, news consumers, and journalists are discussed.

References

  1. Norah Abokhodair, Daisy Yoo, and David W. McDonald. 2015. Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 839-851. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Inc. Alexa Internet. 1996. Alexa-About Us. http://www.alexa.com/about.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, and Chuan Yu. 2019. Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Christopher A Bail, Lisa Argyle, Taylor Brown, John Bumpuss, Haohan Chen, M.B. F Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to Opposing Views can Increase Political Polarization: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Michael Barbaro. 2016. Donald Trump Clung to 'Birther' Lie for Years, and Still Isn't Apologetic. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-birther.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alessandro Bessi and Emilio Ferrara. 2016. Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21, 11 (2016). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7090Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993-1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Leticia Bode, Ceren Budak., Jonathan M. Ladd, Frank Newport, Josh Pasek, Lisa O. Singh, Stuart N. Soroka, and Michael W. Traugott. Forthcoming. Words That Matter: How the News and Social Media Shaped the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Alexandre Bovet and Hernán A Makse. 2019. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lia Bozarth, Aparajita Saraf, and Ceren Budak. 2019. Higher Ground? How Groundtruth Labeling Impacts Our Understanding of the Spread of Fake News During the 2016 Election. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3340173. SSRN (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ed Brayton. 2016. Please Stop Sharing Links to These Sites.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Phil Brown and Jessica Minty. 2006. Media coverage & charitable giving after the 2004 tsunami. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ceren Budak, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. 2011. Limiting the Spread of Misinformation in Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web(WWW '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 665-674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ceren Budak, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao. 2016. Fair and balanced? quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, S1 (2016), 250-271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ceren Budak and Duncan J Watts. 2015. Dissecting the spirit of Gezi: Influence vs. selection in the Occupy Gezi movement. Sociological Science 2(2015), 370-397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Carlos Castillo, Mohammed El-Haddad, Jürgen Pfeffer, and Matt Stempeck. 2014. Characterizing the Life Cycle of Online News Stories Using Social Media Reactions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 211-223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Josh Constine. 2018. Facebook starts fact checking photos/videos, blocks millions of fake accounts per day. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/facebook-fact-check-photos/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Rob Crilly. 2018. Facebook to start 'trust ratings' for media outlets as it fights back against fake news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/19/facebook-start-trust-ratings-media-outlets-fights-back-against/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Clayton Allen Davis, Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. BotOrNot: A System to Evaluate Social Bots. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web(WWW '16 Companion). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 273-274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan. 2007. The Fox News effect: media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122, 3 (2007), 1187-1234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Caitlin Dewey. 2016. Facebook Fake-News Writer:'I Think Donald Trump is in the White House Because of Me'.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Susanna Dilliplane. 2011. All the News You Want to Hear: The Impact of Partisan News Exposure on Political Participation. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, 2 (2011), 287-316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, S1 (2016), 298-320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jack Fuller. 2010. What is happening to news: The information explosion and the crisis in journalism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lauren Gambino. 2016. Trump Foundation: the allegations against Donald's charity, explained. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/05/donald-trump-foundation-allegations-charity-new-york.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshua Gillin. 2017. PolitiFact's Guide to Fake News Websites and What They Peddle. http://bit.ly/2o8kj3b.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandra González-Bailón and Georgios Paltoglou. 2015. Signals of public opinion in online communication: A comparison of methods and data sources. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659, 1(2015), 95-107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer. 2016. News use across social media platforms 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. N Grinberg, K Joseph, L Friedland, B Swire-Thompson, and D Lazer. 2018. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Technical Report. Working Paper. Available from the authors.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Nir Grinberg, Kenneth Joseph, Lisa Friedland, Briony Swire-Thompson, and David Lazer. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363, 6425 (2019), 374-378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan, and Jason Reifler. 2018. Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. , 14 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Aditi Gupta, Hemank Lamba, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and Anupam Joshi. 2013. Faking Sandy: Characterizing and Identifying Fake Images on Twitter During Hurricane Sandy. In Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on World Wide Web(WWW '13 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 729-736. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. ANDREW HIGGINS, MIKE McINTIRE, and GABRIEL J.X. DANCE. 2016. Inside a Fake News Sausage Factory: ?This Is All About Income?https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Pik-Mai Hui, Chengcheng Shao, Alessandro Flammini, Filippo Menczer, and Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia. 2018. The Hoaxy Misinformation and Fact-Checking Diffusion Network. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2018, June 25-28, 2018.AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA, 528-530. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/view/17851Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Twitter Inc.2018. Twitter Health Metrics Proposal Submission. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/twitter-health-metrics-proposal-submission.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Shanto Iyengar, Helmut Norpoth, and Kyu S Hahn. 2004. Consumer demand for election news: The horserace sells. Journal of Politics 66, 1 (2004), 157-175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Jagadeesh Jagarlamudi, Hal Daume´, III, and Raghavendra Udupa. 2012. Incorporating Lexical Priors into Topic Models. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics(EACL '12). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 204-213. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2380816.2380844 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Elise Jordan. 2016. Hillary Clinton's Reaction to Her Foundation Scandal Is Disastrous. http://time.com/4466911/hillary-clinton-email-excuses/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dan Jurafsky, Victor Chahuneau, Bryan R Routledge, and Noah A Smith. 2014. Narrative framing of consumer sentiment in online restaurant reviews. First Monday 19, 4 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Richard L Kaplan. 2002. Politics and the American press: The rise of objectivity, 1865-1920. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Brian C. Keegan. 2018. The Dynamics of Peer-Produced Political Information During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2018, June 25-28, 2018.AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA, 632-635. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/view/17800Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kia Kokalitcheva. 2016. Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea'. http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/facebook-election-fake-news-mark-zuckerberg/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An, Joni Salminen, Soon-Gyo Jung, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2018. What We Read, What We Search: Media Attention and Public Attention Among 193 Countries. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference(WWW '18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 893-902. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. David M. J. Lazer, Matthew A. Baum, Yochai Benkler, Adam J. Berinsky, Kelly M. Greenhill, Filippo Menczer, Miriam J. Metzger, Brendan Nyhan, Gordon Pennycook, David Rothschild, Michael Schudson, Steven A. Sloman, Cass R. Sunstein, Emily A. Thorson, Duncan J. Watts, and Jonathan L. Zittrain. 2018. The science of fake news. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1094-1096. arXiv:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1094.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jim Maddock, Kate Starbird, Haneen J. Al-Hassani, Daniel E. Sandoval, Mania Orand, and Robert M. Mason. 2015. Characterizing Online Rumoring Behavior Using Multi-Dimensional Signatures. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 228-241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Alice Marwick and Rebecca Lewis. 2017. Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Burt L Monroe, Michael P Colaresi, and Kevin M Quinn. 2008. Fightin'words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis 16, 4 (2008), 372-403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Adam Mosseri. 2016. News feed fyi: Addressing hoaxes and fake news. http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyiaddressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Supun Nakandala, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Norman Makoto Su, and Yong-Yeol Ahn. 2016. Gendered Conversation in a Social Game-Streaming Platform. CoRR abs/1611.06459(2016). arxiv:1611.06459http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06459Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. David Newman, Jey Han Lau, Karl Grieser, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. Automatic Evaluation of Topic Coherence. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics(HLT '10). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 100-108. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1857999.1858011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. A. Conrad Nied, Leo Stewart, Emma Spiro, and Kate Starbird. 2017. Alternative Narratives of Crisis Events: Communities and Social Botnets Engaged on Social Media. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(CSCW '17 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263-266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Hannah Jane Parkinson. 2016. Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Josh Pasek, Lisa O. Singh, Yifang Wei, Stuart N. Soroka, Jonathan M. Ladd, Michael W. Traugott, Ceren Budak, Leticia Bode, and Frank Newport. 2018. Attention to Campaign Events: Do Twitter and Self-Report Metrics Tell the Same Story?Forthcoming in BIGSURV18: Big Data Meets Survey Science Edited Volume (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas E Patterson. 2016. News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters. Technical Report. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Paul Resnick, Samuel Carton, Souneil Park, Yuncheng Shen, and Nicole Zeffer. 2014. Rumorlens: A system for analyzing the impact of rumors and corrections in social media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Paul Resnick, R. Kelly Garrett, Travis Kriplean, Sean A. Munson, and Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2013. Bursting Your (Filter) Bubble: Strategies for Promoting Diverse Exposure. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion(CSCW '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95-100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Filipe Nunes Ribeiro, Lucas Henrique, Fabrício Benevenuto, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Juhi Kulshrestha, Mahmoudreza Babaei, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2018. Media Bias Monitor: Quantifying Biases of Social Media News Outlets at Large-Scale. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2018, June 25-28, 2018.AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA, 290-299. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/view/17878Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. S Schaedel. 2018. Websites that post fake and satirical stories. FactCheck. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/websites-post-fake-satirical-stories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Chengcheng Shao, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. Hoaxy: A Platform for Tracking Online Misinformation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web(WWW '16 Companion). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 745-750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Mallory Shelbourne. 2017. Facebook rolls out feature to combat fake news. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/322427-facebook-begins-to-introduce-new-feature-to-combat-fake-news.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ignacio Siles and Pablo J Boczkowski. 2012. Making sense of the newspaper crisis: A critical assessment of existing research and an agenda for future work. New Media & Society 14, 8 (2012), 1375-1394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Craig Silverman. 2016. Here are 50 of the biggest fake news hits on Facebook from 2016. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/top-fake-news-of-2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. C Silverman. 2016. This analysis shows how fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook.https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Craig Silverman, Jane Lytvynenko, and Scott Pham. 2017. These are 50 of the biggest fake news hits on Facebook in 2017. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilver man/these-are-50-of-the-biggest-fake-news-hits-on-facebook-in.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Craig Silverman and Jeremy Singer-Vine. 2016. Most Americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-newssurvey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Stuart N Soroka. 2012. The gatekeeping function: Distributions of information in media and the real world. The Journal of Politics 74, 2 (2012), 514-528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Kate Starbird. 2017. Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem Through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter.. In ICWSM. AAAI Press, Montre´al, Que´bec, Canada, 230-239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Art Swift. 2016. Americans' trust in mass media sinks to new low.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. William N Venables and Brian D Ripley. 2013. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146-1151. arXiv:http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Nick Wingfield, Mike Isaac, and Katie Benner. 2016. Google and Facebook take aim at fake news sites. The New York Times, November 14 (2016), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Donghee Yvette Wohn, Casey Fiesler, Libby Hemphill, Munmun De Choudhury, and J. Nathan Matias. 2017. How to Handle Online Risks?: Discussing Content Curation and Moderation in Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1271-1276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Lori Young and Stuart Soroka. 2012. Lexicoder sentiment dictionary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Melissa Zimdars. 2016. False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical “News” Sources. https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/mobilebasic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
    May 2019
    3620 pages
    ISBN:9781450366748
    DOI:10.1145/3308558

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 13 May 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format