Fakenews from HuffPo

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2016, 10:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The definition was not referring to "editorials" but to "editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with." Editorial decision-making concerns what gets published as news and what is cut or added in any piece, including straight news.

To re-quote: “Fake news” is not a one-size-fits-all rejoinder for editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with Stick with “that’s not news”.

Expanding the term "fake news" Fox-style, to cover whatever you don't like, renders it useless as a descriptor. You are perfectly free to follow your own whims and use it as a rejoinder for editorial-decision making or reporting you disagree with.  But unless you can demonstrate the value of making "fake news" a catch all term, I am sticking with the limited reference for clarity.

I think there are two good uses of the term "fake news" and you are bringing up good points.

The first usage that I agree with is how SSF used it in this thread. A story deliberately misled and, arguably, outright lied to the readers. 

The second usage is actual fake news. Just made up stories, often times originating on fake websites, sometimes picked up by more "legitimate" sites. 

Maybe we need a harsher term for the first usage because, in my opinion, it is worse when someone generally accepted to be a journalist at something considered to be a news organization lies or fabricates stories. At least fake news sites can be clearly identified as fake news (by someone looking with an objective eye).