I’m curious, Mr. Jarvis, what sites or publications would you consider authors or hosts for ‘fake news’? Obviously your suggestions would favor ‘established’ media such as the Denver Post, the New York Times, CNN, and the major television networks. Would these established media be exempt from the stigma of ‘fake news’?
Having watched the last election, from primaries through election and post-election, I’ve never seen such bias, character assassination, and outright lies against one candidate as I did by these formerly trustworthy outlets. They openly threw all ethics to the curb in an attempt to defeat Donald Trump. They also ignored or minimized news which didn’t fit a set narrative — like the content of the Podesta emails, Clinton emails being made public by the FBI, and startling disclosures from people within the DNC and the Clinton campaign. These media were actually colluding with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to control the news cycle. In my opinion, and that of most Americans, they lost credibility by doing this.
Whenever stories broke running counter to their narrative it was always first reported on ‘alt’ news sites like Drudgereport, Breitbart, and Infowars. Granted, those outlets are hardly what I would call unbiased, but would you have them eliminated? If not eliminated, would the goal be to reduce their influence? Is this not censorship?
To many of us, this new narrative about ‘fake news’ sounds, well, just a little bit sinister.