>>>I'm betting few voters have much of an idea about the GOP's planned replacements because fake news certainly has no interest in telling you and for Joe Average there's few other opportunities to grapple with complicated models.
>>
>>Here's the problem with using terms like "fake news"-
>>there's an implication that the anointed few know the "real news"
>
>The other problem is that all too often any news that someone doesn't like they just call it 'fake news' ... so what you end up with is "news I don't like" = "fake news". (Trump does this) Then there is the difference between what is 'fake news' (which is something completely made up), vs "inaccurate news", "misleading news", and "omitted news"....for example Fox News is often irresponsible because of what they DON'T tell you and just leave out. I noticed that during the impeachment hearings when a democrat was speaking they would more-times-that-not cut the feed and the news anchors would start taking, .. giving their opinions and replaying out-of-context sound bytes...perfect example of giving you 1/2 the story lol. ...but was it 'fake news' ??? no -- just inaccurate & misleading because of omissions.

It's become almost impossible to get "hard news" from TV networks. It's mainly talking heads opining.
CSPAN is an exception.

The NYT once did a pretty good job of separating hard news and opinion, but since Trump's election they've also slipped in that regard, so I have to hunt around occasionally to find out what happened, rather than what someone thinks about what happened.

So, as you say "fake news" has come to mean something said by a talking head whose opinion differs from yours.

The problem here is that Trump uses "fake news" to question facts, not opinion.

That's dangerous.