> You don't think there's a distinction between "inaccurate news" and outright intentional fakery?

No, I don't. When you call news fake, all you're doing is calling into question the motive of the author or outlet in addition to calling it inaccurate; You're saying, "This news is inaccurate, and the author intentionally made it so." The first part is a statement about the article itself, the second part is a useless ad hominem attack. So when something is said to be "fake news", it's only indirectly about the news itself.

I'll happily concede that some organizations are objectively kept at higher standards than others, ie: that El Chapo story is clearly just fabricated for advertisement dollars. I am not arguing that it is wrong to ever judge an author or organization for past inaccuracies-- denying news organization reputation would be absurd. But given that what we're really talking about with "fake news" is the reputation and intentions of the organizations, what I resent about the "fake news" label is that it presents this false dichotomy where there are organizations that intend to mislead, and then there are the pure and good ones. There's this implication that a story can only misrepresent something by serious omission or the insertion of something that is totally false and separate from reality, but it's not like that, it's a continuum. All journalists and organizations have some inherent bias, and I don't see why it's reasonable to expect readers to understand the inherent biases of particular outlets and to draw the truth out from mixing and considering them in proportion, whereas if they're exposed to one "fake" website that presents one overtly inaccurate statement, it's assumed to be completely fatal to their reasoning -- overtly false information is simply too powerful for the feeble minds of the masses. And nevermind that what's "fake" is rather subjective, and tends to be ascribed more commonly to the new disruptive media rather than the old and entrenched media conglomerates.

There's far more danger in centralized curation than there is with people being exposed to inaccurate statements on the internet. I do not understand how anyone could think otherwise.

In your eyes, what's the difference between fake and inaccurate news? What makes some inaccurate news fake, and other inaccurate news not-fake? If it's based on gauging the intent of the author, wouldn't you agree that it's practically useless?

Inaccurate news is news based on outdated or incomplete information.

Fake news is fake information passed off as "news", for whatever reason.

Stories, as they are reported, are constantly evolving and changing in the details. For example, in the Uber AV fatality story, news outlets initially reported the driver as a man named Rafael. The driver's actual name is Rafaela, and she is a woman. The news outlets were wrong but they got their info from a police spokesperson.

To continue reporting the story and say that it involves a driver named Rafael would be inaccurate. But the intent is not deliberate or malicious. Fake reporting would be to say Uber's driver was a 12-year old illegal immigrant, and making that fact up out of the blue.

In regards to reporting on public issues and officials, libel law gives First Amendment protection to reporting false information. A defendant is only culpable of libel/slander if gross negligence or actual malice is found: https://www.rcfp.org/category/glossary-terms/actual-malice

> [...] fake news is fake information [...]

What is "fake information"? The word 'fake' has been transformed recently to mean something that is not well defined. Everyone knows that a 'fake' watch is a counterfeit watch, and the same goes for a 'fake' id. It's fraudulent, and that usage is well established. Past that, lines get blurry. A "fake" person is someone who is superficial and cares a lot about appearances. Where does "fake" information fit in here? If we photoshop freckles out of a photo or slim down a waistline, we might call that a "fake" photo, but the picture is still mostly accurate.

Does true information that has been stretched or selectively omitted fall under "fake"? Does it have to be completely made up?

> [...] But the intent is not deliberate or malicious. [...]

So it comes down to intent of the author in your mind? Wouldn't you agree that calling some news "fake" is primarily a statement about the author, then? You're saying, "the information is inaccurate, and the author did so with intent."

Have you disagreed with me?