Many media reports about Trump are Fake News. Like the Terror attack in Sweden of which he never talked about in his speech. (I watched the whole event and he was completely misunderstood and never said or meant that there has been a terror attack, he usually speaks about the extreme rise in crime and violence against women in Sweden and Germany and meant it that way. The reporter creating the false story must have never watched a Trump speech before. Also in Swedish local newspapers there are daily stories about many crimes commited by illegal immigrants or ISIS members because these are really happening)

But I also think that the term fake news is not not the best.

There are completely false news, but this is less than 1% of what falls under the fake news label.
Then there are one sided and biased news that focus on a very small part of the truth while leaving out other more or equally important parts, which leads to a false conclusion.
Then there are news based on fake facts or manipulated statistics, nearly all fact checking results fall under that category because they often are not true or based on fake facts or ideology.

Many of the fake news are debatable. Both sides cannot prove or disprove a fact or argument because their sources are biased or the very complex truth depends on the point of view. The world is complex and often there is not just a simple true or false.

Trump's fake news are easily proven fake. Like his latest comment about his electoral win. It's not debatable, it's a simple fact.

Yes, the numbers given to him by his speech writers were wrong. But he did not tell the wrong numbers on purpose. Mistakes can happen and he admitted it. Putin also attacked Korea according to the Democrats because mistakes can happen.

The number of people watching his inauguation however is debatable because if you count the millions of online viewers the alternative facts are true. The press is making a fake story out of this.

Yeah I think that we can/should all agree with this, too. Healthy skepticism is good when appraising any information :) at least society has taken an important step in recognising the prevalence and impact of "fake news", but the next step, logically combating it, is much harder.

Thanks god it did not happen but it was planned and could have happened. If it happened or not is not relevant to the discussion at all, the posibility is there and it almost happened. Nobody claimed that it happened also, the media just made another fake news story out of it. But the armed terrorists were there but they were stopped.

Seriously? How is that an excuse? He hires the speech writers doesn't he? He checks the speeches, right?

A simple google search would have told any of them they were wrong. If they can't even get a simple thing like that right then how can you trust them to be competent enough to run a Country?

The media are doing the same thing they do with any new president. Trump is making it far too easy for them to call him out on his bull. 

If you count only the physical visitors, media is right (despite the rain and the fact that entry often was blocked by protesters)
If you count in the online viewers that Spicer brought into the discussion, Trump had more viewers than any president before and he was given that information.

Both sides are right, depending on the viewpoint so where is the problem. The fake news story is the media claiming that Trump meant physical watchers while he was referring to all watchers (physical + online).

There are zero lies here just different perspectives and mainstream media that want to destroy Trump at any cost. The problem is that too many people are blindly believing the media without checking the real facts.

If he misspoke, he might as well have spread the fake news himself. It's not the media's responsibility to correct him misspeaking, especially when it's not at all obvious what he meant. The words he used were quite difficult to understand as a reference to what was shown on TV, but they were relatively easy to understand as a reference to an attack.

Similar to "terrorism", there simply is no precise and commonly agreed on definition of the phrase "fake news".

Everybody uses his own, slightly different understanding of that phrase, which fits his personal agenda. Similar to the word "terrorism", "fake news" is always only what some perceived "enemy" does.

What you are describing is somewhat close to being something like the least common demoninator though; in cases where someone knowingly spreads false information, most people would agree that this can be considered an example of "fake news".

Still, even that definition has huge drawbacks:

- that definition also covers phenomenons like "hoaxes", or satirical news websites like "the onion" or "Der Postillon"
- in cases when the news is not satirical, that definition is basically useless. Because even if it can be proven that some information is false, the person who spread it will claim that he simply wasn't aware of that, and thus didn't actually lie.

There is a valid argument to be made about media bias, but this is not how Trump is using the term.  He is using the term fake news to refer to any criticism of him.

And yes, there absolutely are fake stories.  Like the one about thousands of muslims celebrating in the streets on 9/11, or the attack on Friday in Sweeden, or the Bowling Green Massacre, or the attack in Atlanta, or Trump being invited to John Oliver's show, or Trump receiving a letter from the NFL about the debates, or Trump having the largest crowd at his inaugaration, or about it not raining during Trump's inaugaration, or that Trump owns Trump vineyards, or that Trump steaks are still being sold, or that millions of unregistered voters voted in the election.  Lots of fake news out there...