Exactly! Simple, right? Which is why I feel this isn't just about politics, and therefore not just about Trump. The news organizations hate the term, yet how could they deny the simple logic of what you just said.

I'm pretty sure fake news was actually, initially, referring to stuff such as this;

http://abcnews.com.co/

Let's see, the Disclaimer, Privacy, Advertise and Contact list all lead to a Contact page which has a picture of a house, an address that is actually the Westboro Baptist Church, and was basically a site that literally made shit up because it would get a certain group of people frantically frothing at the bit. This means they would visit regularly, and you'd generate easy ad revenue; unlike traditional journalism, you had no expenses beyond site management, because you were literally making shit up as you went. If you're asking 'who would be dumb enough to fall for a site like this,' check the comments section of this article;

http://abcnews.com.co/obama-signs-executive-order-appoints-rashad-hussain-as-supreme-court-justice/

There were people. =P Not a massive group, certainly, but then again it doesn't need to be. Again, remember, low costs, and because you don't need to FIND news stories, you can pretty much pump out as many as you'd like and they'd keep coming back because people like that NEVER fact-check.

Trump has obviously started using the term to describe any outlet he doesn't like, leading to winning statements as 'The leaks are real, the news is fake.' Ultimately it isn't about addressing any concern with the media, or even combating dishonesty (seriously, look at the guy talking,) but rather combating the reports against him the only way he knows; trying to discredit their sources at every opportunity. Conditioning his supporters so that if ever shit does hit the fan- more than it already has- he can count on them to ignore, ignore, ignore.

Certainly, one could make the argument that the story on Trump's higher expenditures isn't terribly important. I think there's a certain delicious irony to it, since Obama's expenditures were actually a point Trump hammered on back in the day, but ultimately stuff like the DoD wanting to rent space in Trump Tower with taxpayer money, the less-than-ideal lack of separation between Trump's businesses and his administration, etc are far more worthy topics. One new wrinkle being that he successfully got a trademark on 'Trump' in China right around the time he changed his mind about recognizing Taiwan and began adhering to the 'One China' policy. =P Coincidence? Possibly, even probably, but something worth looking into.

They can't, which is why they get so riled when people talk about it. But it's completely unavoidable at this point because the quality just keeps hitting new lows and clickbait tactics are the norm now even at once-venerable institutions. There are times when I've mistaken the BBC for Buzzfeed in recent years.

You can pretty much click on any article/video that criticizes Trump and you'll see "Fake News" comments spammed all over. Just the other day when Shepard Smith callled out Trump, everything he said was accurate, but there are still people all over Twitter, YouTube, ect leaving "Fake News" comments and saying he should be fired. 

Yes you are right those are two completely different points. I never made the second point about the topic not having any substance. I specifically said, "the only substantiave point you give regarding your (re)definition of fake news is all about politics. Everything else is merely is merely a vague suggestion that it could be in any other subject matters. [Thus, they have] Nothing of substance."

I read the op and I am aware of your analogy. Analogies are good, always good because they highlight, clarify or make information easier to understand, but they are nothing of substance. It isn't a matter of whether you are right or wrong in your argument. If you are saying something like it doesn't revolve around more than this subject matter, you actually have to give at LEAST one actual example of one instance where it isn't about that subject matter, and that is typically for one situation. You include, "videogames, entertainment, music, food, politics, sports, etc. " Yet the only actual example of fake (... or fast) anything you actually give is regarding Trump. If you want to someone to realize a concept you actually have to put context for that in your argument. I clicked on this feeling I completely wasted my time. It all comes off as you wanting to put a seed of politics into things it doesn't belong just to further "whatever agenda you have". Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care. I avoid politics in general to begin with. Your argument is centralized on something happening in politics not more than politics.

Look, the news can dramatise things, but they generally need to have basis on a veridic fact.

The e-mail from Hillary were a fact, that she was crooked, wasn't.

Did Trumps associates have contact with Russian intelligence? Fact. Is Trump working for them? Not fact.

What i find marvelous is that Trump flip flops according to conveniece. Hilary's mail? Yes, all the worst, she is crooked. My staff misbehaving? Fake news!!
You can't have both!! Either they are or they aren't.

The problem is that there's no such thing as "fake news". News cannot be fake, it can be WRONG, but not really fake. Like when Trump said that something happened in Sweden, I still consider it news. Unreliable news, sure -but still news. The term itself, in my opinion, is stupid. It should just be called what it is, misinformation or baiting, but not fake. The whole "fake news" thing reminds me of the whole "FAKE AND GAY" thing people used to say a while back

You're always on point.

You write a lot for things you don't care about :)

Don't sugar coat it. "fake news" & "alternative facts" = Lies