A more convincing graphic might be to put these graphs side-by-side with Google Books Ngram Viewer graphs of the same terms, since the Google Books data would presumably represent a wider sample of the culture at large.
The writer purports to make a case about the profit motives of the New York Times, but the graphs are presented without broader context. Do comparable graphs exist to prove this claim? Does it also differentiate from social media words being used, or from other media sources like Reuters, Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, etc? Without further context about this, I don't know what conclusions should be drawn specifically about NYT. I also don't know what the graphs mean- are they all on the same scale, or is it measuring their frequency relative to themselves? It makes sense for a term like "amazon" to double or triple in frequency from the 1970s, because the literal Amazon company is probably double or triply influencial than however many times the Science section can cover the amazon rainforest.įor example, it's difficult to deviate that racism is an outrage culture strategy from the NYT if Black Lives Matter was coined in 2013 (and then became popular in 2014) which coincides with the graphs about race.įor example, it makes sense that amazon got more attention over time- it literally didn't exist in 1970s and only became prominent recently.ĮDIT: There is also a claim that this noticeably differentiates from google trends of words searched for.
Several of the terms listed include terms that literally didn't exist in 1970s so I'm not surprised that they spike up.
0 kommentar(er)
