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?
