Your official position is any headline that isn't 100% accurate is fake news. That's weird. Now headline writers are more important than the journalist who have factual information in their stories. A factually accurate story instantly becomes fake if a headline writer creates a misleading/attention grabbing headline according to you. I thought MANY of us knew the purpose of the headline writer and clearly I was wrong.

House Democrats on Wednesday said the General Services Administration told them President-elect Donald Trump must fully divest from his new hotel property in Washington, D.C. or he'll be in violation of the lease.

Four Democrats of the key committees and subcommittees that oversee government contracts, including Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recounted a briefing the members received from GSA Deputy Commissioner of the Public Building Service, Michael Gelber, who is not a political appointee, who said that when Trump is sworn in, he will be in violation of the provisions of a federal lease of the Old Post Office building.

"The Deputy Commissioner informed our staff that GSA assesses that Mr. Trump will be in breach of the lease agreement the moment he takes office on January 20, 2017, unless he fully divests himself of all financial interests in the lease for the Washington, D.C. hotel," the Democrats wrote in a press release Wednesday.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

A headline, and three 'graphs explicitly restating the patently false statement of fact in the headline:



Only then is the actual quote from the GSA revealed.

Now, I know you're going to say: "The columnist was only quoting what others said, which just so happened to be patently false, that's not real fake news."

So, if the headlines from the Hillary Clinton murder stuff read the same, but the stories started out "a person with knowledge of the investigation into [this person]'s death told us that officials believe agents of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are Persons Of Interest in the crime; The source continued that [this person] had intimate knowledge of a medical condition currently afflicting Mrs. Clinton, a condition which would make her unfit for the Presidency, and the timing of his death is curious." Are they still "fake news"?

The article lists the claim and the representative who made it. The article then debunks that claim with an official quote from the GSA. That's journalism. There wouldn't have been a need for the story if those representatives never made the claim. It appears to me that you are suggesting that the journalist shouldn't have done any reporting on the claims that were made. If the headline was "Elected Officials Caught Lying" I imagine Trumpets wouldn't have an issue with the article. If that were the headline I wouldn't consider it to be fake news.

Do you really believe that? The entire piece is specifically designed to cast aspersions on the way Donald Trump is handling his business. The fact that Trump's investment in the hotel is a non-issue is buried in the third paragraph. Hysterical liberals like yourself usually don't read that far. In fact, I believe you have raised the non-issue of the Trump hotel in this forum, a fact undoubtedly related to your susceptibility to fake news of exactly this kind.

Trumpets are clearly working hard to redefine what fake news is.

YOU can't even define it! All you seem willing to do is point to an article and say "that", which isn't a definition at all, mind you, but then get all pissy when people try to "redefine" something for which you have yet to define independent of any one or group of examples.

So, for the 3rd time, I believe: irrespective of any one example, what is the definition of "fake news"?

Give me a set of criteria which I can apply to any "news" source I find to determine whether it is "fake".

I do not have to. It has already been done. It is not opinion pieces, shitty journalism, misleading headlines or biased reporting. If it were, nearly everything would be considered fake news.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

Some fake news websites use website spoofing, structured to make visitors believe they are visiting trusted sources like ABC News or MSNBC.[21] The New York Times defined "fake news" on the Internet as fictitious articles deliberately fabricated to deceive readers, generally with the goal of profiting through clickbait.[32] PolitiFact described fake news as fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination.[33]

The New York Times noted in a December 2016 article that fake news had previously maintained a presence on the Internet and in tabloid journalism in the years prior to the 2016 U.S. election.[32] Prior to the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, fake news had not impacted the election process and subsequent events to such a high degree.[32] Subsequent to the 2016 election, the issue of fake news turned into a political weapon, with supporters of left-wing politics saying those on the opposite side of the spectrum spread falsehoods, and supporters of right-wing politics contending such accusations were merely a way to censor conservative views.[32] Due to these back-and-forth complaints, the definition of fake news as used for such polemics became more vague.

From the part of that page titled "Definition", there are at least 3 varying definitions, and 2 conflicting ones (one is content-based, the other has to do with the branding of a website):



You can't define "fake news" but are upset when people "redefine" it.

It literally defined it in the first few sentences.

Deliberately published hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation, using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect. Unlike news satire, fake news websites seek to mislead, rather than entertain readers for financial or other gain

If that is the definition, why are there other varying definitions given in the next section entitled "definition"?

I'm also curious to know what it is about "Russia hacked the election" that isn't "propaganda" or "misinformation".

But maybe you should settle on a definition first, you seem to have a few options.

You got your definition. It's bolded and in large font for you.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

It may not qualify as fake per second

Mmm, advanced fake news metrics. Not enough Fact Support.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Oy. I typed per se. My phone added in the rest of second.
I apologize as I should have proof read my post before I hit submit.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Oy. I typed per se. My phone added in the rest of second.
I apologize as I should have proof read my post before I hit submit.

That is the definition of "fake news website". The issue at hand is the definition of "fake news". Can "fake news" only come from "fake news websites"? That's a rather limited definition of the term, and thusly limits the scope of the "fake news problem".

FAKE POST!

There's only one guy here supporting fake news.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I find it ironic that Trump and his supporters are pushing the fake news angle when his entire ascension into the political arena began with the birtherism movement.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I gave you that as the definition of fake news.

"Juice Lecture Notes: Men Should Knock Women Out"
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=104009&hilit=Mixon

That's a misleading headline

I find it ironic that Trump and his supporters are pushing the fake news angle when his entire ascension into the political arena began with the birtherism movement.

Hey, I'm fine with defining fake news via advanced metrics like "facts per paragraph" normalized to account for outlet bias. It would be far and away better than the bullshit shifting goalposts that appear to currently define "fake news" (which is really just "right wing bullshit stories", and everyone, including Nas, knows it).

I haven't read Trump or his supporters talking about "fake news" much at all. That's the point. As JLN pointed out the real definition of "fake news" is bullshit right wing stories.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

There's only one guy here supporting fake news.

Hmmm...



But not "fake news". Got it.

What about a story that misleads in the headline, then proceeds to quote a family saying something it never did and doing something it never did, would that be:



Why not, again? Because "reputable news outlets never publish fake news"? That would mean a story can have all your elements to constitute of "fake news"--it can mislead, contain disinformation or misinformation, all to drive clicks and generate revenue--but wouldn't be "fake news" because the source is "reputable"? Is Fox News incapable of running "fake news" then?

The story wouldn't be misleading because it provides a complete transcript.