Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.
I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.
Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.
Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it.
I'm realizing what you're saying, and pointing out that it is wrong.
I really can't say it more clearly. Fake news means making up facts . You are saying people should be outraged by the leaks out of the Trump administration. Well, fine, you can think that if you want. That's perfectly valid opinion. However, if a news article does not happen to write that opinion in the body of an article, not writing it does not make that news article fake news. Fake news means making up facts .
OK, there may be a huge difference between one type of leak and another. You may even label that "false equivalence" if you like. But it's not fake news unless they are making up facts.
Got it? Fake news is news that is incorrect because it is made up with no regard to facts. Fake news is not "an article that didn't express an opinion that I personally think should have been expressed."
Look, this is important: there is a clear and bright distinction between news that expresses an opinion that you think is wrong, and "news" that simply makes shit up with the intent to outrage without any intent whatsoever to be consistent with reality. Making shit up is fake news.