Of course they don't talk about all the fake news that came out against the Democratic side (pizzagate, etc)...anyway:
In several of those there is some serious hair-splitting.
For example the CNN headline cited in the DeVos section is word-for-word accurate. How is that fake news? The author then sums up that section by strawman-ing that entire item of "fake news".
The climate change "fakeness" seems to stem from this author's dislike for the word purge. It IS normal for administrations to update things but the removal of all climate change talk is very telling. That WAS the essence of the news coverage. Overblown? Maybe. But hardly fake.
There are several other leaps from real to fake made in this article that I'm too tired to outline. It's a horribly biased piece which is rich considering the topic it tries to cover.
Now does the media (at least certain outlets/authors) sensationalize much of what Trump does in a negative light? Absolutely. Have they done that for every president since JFK? Absolutely. It's to be expected even more so with Trump because he has tried to discredit pretty much all media.
The fact that there is "fake news" no longer alarms me. It's been happening since there was "real news". What alarms me is that any dissenting voice in the media is decried as "fake" by the Trump administration. It's even more disturbing that a large segment of the population just takes them at their word. It's even further disturbing that the American president feels like he has the right to say which media sources are real (pro-Trump) and which are fake (critical of Trump even just once it seems) and that this is somehow acceptable to many.
Have a great night!!
