Fake news on Facebook and social media swung the 2016 US presidential election
Unchecked
| Fake news on Facebook and social media swung the 2016 US presidential election | |
|---|---|
| UNSUPPORTED | |
| "Fake news stories spread on social media decided the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election." | |
| Domain | Politics & Elections |
| Tactic | Statistical & Evidentiary Distortion |
| Era | Current |
| First seen | 2016 |
| Origin | Public and media commentary right after the November 2016 election, when fake news sites went viral on Facebook. |
| Last reviewed | 2026-10-31 |
| Further reading: books on Politics & Elections | |
After the 2016 election, many people feared that fake news articles spread on Facebook had swayed the result. Researchers started measuring how far these stories reached and whether they changed votes.
The evidence does not show that fake news decided the election. Some studies suggest it was unlikely. One study argues it may have mattered, but its authors say they cannot prove it. The verdict is unsupported.
What the evidence shows
[edit]- Limited reach. A Stanford and NYU study found that only 14 percent of Americans named social media as their most important source of election news. The authors said a reader could reasonably conclude it is unlikely that fake news swayed the election.
- Persuasion needed. The same study estimated that one fake story would have needed to shift about 0.7 percent of the Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it. That is a persuasion rate equal to seeing 36 television campaign ads.
- Few people saw it. News coverage of the study reported that only 8 percent of voters read the fake stories, and even fewer recalled or believed them. Fake stories favorable to Trump were shared 30 million times on Facebook, against about 7 million for pro-Clinton ones.
- Opposing study, with caveats. Ohio State researchers argued that belief in fake news may have had a substantial impact on former Obama voters. They also wrote that they could not prove it caused those voters to defect from Clinton.
- Experts still cautious. A political scientist who co-authored a major study said he knew of no evidence that fake news changed the outcome. NPR noted that even if it did not swing the election, fake news may still be a worry.
Why it matters
[edit]The claim shows how a real problem, the spread of false stories, can be stretched into a cause that the data do not support. It also shows how headlines about single studies can overstate what the authors found. Fake news was real in 2016, but its effect on the result is unproven.
Sources
[edit]- Stanford News, "Stanford study examines fake news and the 2016 presidential election", January 2017 Link
- The Hill, "Fake news did not change result of 2016 election: study", January 2017 Link
- The Hill, "Researchers say fake news had 'substantial impact' on 2016 election", 2018 Link
- NBC News, "'Fake news' went viral in 2016. This expert studied who clicked" Link