People are taking the term "Fake" News literally and thereby finding themselves either confused or overly-confident that they are justified in saying it is a stupid term. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuUWBW9Y4zA

It's a story about how Trump spends more on vacation than Obama, probably a combination of the fact that people who grow up wealthy are less frugal and also the fact that Trump's extended family in the White House (many grown adults, unlike Obama's Daughters) is much much larger than other administrations. Cut to the chase, even if it's wrong, it's not the kind of content that determines whether a president does or does not do a good job.

That's my definition of fake news right there. Obviously it's not a fake story, for god's sake no one is that dumb. That's why I say "fast" news akin to fast-food is a more accurate term. Yes, it's food, and yes it has protein and other nutrients to satisfy what the body needs...but for how long? It's a bite-sized piece of news. It's not a thorough investigation into a deep matter. It's not like a 1-hour documentary into a deep topic like you'll find in a documentary or a documentary-style show like Anothy Bourdain's Part's Unknown or Mike Rowe's Somebody's Gotta Do It. It's not a movie on climate change or JFK, etc.

Does this help one understand "Fake News" better?

From that perspective then, one should see how this carries over to all subject matter, videogames, entertainment, music, food, politics, sports, etc. Substantive news that focuses on deep issues, and quick news that is shallow. Fast-anything has become rampant in a society where not only do we have a 24-hour news cycle but also 24-media channels/outlets. If there is, at max, maybe 1 hour worth of substantive news in a given day, then how do you fill the ramining hours and channels? With fast-news.

That's my argument/POV. So, does anyone else see the validity in this new term that's been getting tossed around?

LivingMetal said:

Fake news is not the information in itself, but moreso the presentation and intent of the information.  If I were to say:

"My daughter made a B on her test."

The info itself isn't fake (mind you hypothetical at this point), but what picture am I trying to paint here?  If she were making Cs and Ds, a B would be good news.  If she were an A student, the opposite would be true.  Even if the info was that she made an A could be taken two different ways.  From a parent's perspective and some of her classmates, that would be good.  But from other classmates, it could be jealousy.  And in most cases, there's a bigger picture to look at.  So in regards to "fake news," there's always a context which applies to any and every conversation.  And if that context is not allowed to be clarified, it's ignorance in best case scenario from the person not will to hear things out.

The logic I'm applying is that do NOT get caught up in the trap of one's vague relatism ("most people" which is what YOU said) to further one's agenda.  But I will say that the term "fake news" originally came from the left to "justify" Trump's election win. Now, it's backfiring.  This is the big picture.

Well Fake news IS a thing. You can look at anything Donald Trump/Kelly conway/Spencer are saying for proof of that.

You can look at the fake Sweden attack Trump made up yesterday.

Bowling Green massacre did not happen. Alternative facts are not a good thing.

Calling things "Fake News" trying to get people to ignore them while actually spreading Fake news is a danger.

I said that? wow I had no idea. I shouldn't have stated that I didn't (oh wait).

My point was that clearly no matter who used it first, it was after Trump started repeating it that it caught on and was used by his fans for obvious reasons. Nothing backfired. Even if Obama had not used the term, Trump would have to fight the media and would come up with the same or a slightly altered term to deflect from his own lies. So hiding behind the "I didn't poll the general audience" ain't fooling anyone. Other than his fans, perhaps.

And what views are you assuming those would be?

Nothing to see in Sweden? (I'll spare the more gruesome stories)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden

Nothing to see in Bowling Green?

Two Iraqi men who lived in Bowling Green, Ky., were indicted in 2011 and are serving life sentences for using improvised explosive devices against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and also for attempting to send weapons and money to Al-Qaeda in Iraq for the purpose of killing U.S. soldiers.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/03/trump-adviser-invents-bowling-green-massacre-defense-refugee-ban/97436748/

Yes, in fact the reason why almost none here in Sweden did understand it is because they're nearly all living in a bubble isolated from reality, and so affected by the absolutely surreal image of Trump that is portrayed in our media (I promise it's much more extreme than in the US. All the papers write about is Trump Trump Trump, "Trump's speech shows he is losing his grip", "Trump is mentally ill says expert", "This scandal will destroy Trump", "Trump's team is in chaos", "Trump will be kicked from office soon"). I've never seen a public figure get so much hate in Swedish media as Donald Trump. People are obsessed.

It's hard to explain, but it's a Swedish thing. It's a psychological thing that has to do with the self image Swedes have. Swedes assume everyone else thinks the same, that we're right on everything, the rest of the world is wrong. So if a Swede has a particular train of thought, that must be the right train of though. It's a collective illness. So they all went and assumed that Trump is so fucking stupid that he was referring to a non-event in Sweden the night before.