The duration of the circumstance is immaterial. The term "Fake News" describes a false story intentionally designed to harm someone. If any major media outlet was creating Fake News on a regular basis, a wealthy backer would retain a team of smart lawyers and they would extract their pound of flesh. "Fake News" targeted at a billionaire. What a laugh! Here's my latest. What a sad, sad thing this Trump administration is turning out to be! Don't anybody feel bad about Sebastian Gorka losing his job in the WH, because we don't know who else that effing weirdo was working for!
What you are describing is not a story with invented facts, but rather a viewpoint which has been developed due to Trump's own mismanagement of the words coming out of his mouth and his mismanaged relationship with the press. Example: Trump goes before a police group and tells them not to cover someone's head as they sit down into the back of a police car. That is encouraging police officers to make a presumption of guilt and to rough criminals up. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, the statement to the police officers group was either one of two things: 1) extremely careless and stupid or 2) an intentional dog whistle to his supporters, in particular those who either have negative views of people who get arrested (read: minorities), or the protections which our legal system provides for arrested people. When the negative stories came out about that part of his speech (supported by a few police Chiefs around the nation who stated that what Trump had said was harmful) whether you personally think the negative media coverage was fair or not, he could have chosen to do a sit down interview specifically to 1) apologize or 2) artfully refute in a politically astute way to explain that his statement was not a call to do harm to arrested people, and did not undermine the rule of law. He didn't do that interview, and so the narrative formed by the media that he is a person who doesn't respect "that-which-must-be respected" is confirmed yet again. Nothing you have said has changed my view that if major media outlets were intentionally inventing a large number of fake stories to harm the President, they would incur a legal exposure which would (rightfully) be exploited. My feeling is that they might be able to get away with a few stories here and there, but that's not what is being alleged by Trump and his supporters. BTW - when Trump has used the term Fake News in the past, he has alleged that specific facts are being invented. Your meme suggests that you think Fake News is about a false general narrative, which I admit would almost certainly not be the subject of a lawsuit. I allow, Trump has used the term in that general way to decry the general narrative, but he has also used it to refer the the specific journalistic invention of facts. Example: Reports on Feb 2 in the media said that Trump had a very contentious conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia on Jan 28. On Feb 3 Trump tweeted this: The transcripts were later leaked, and indeed the convesation was civil, somewhat , except for the part where Trump said this: So, if you want to engage in mushy thinking, contorting the definition of Fake News - whether if defines general narratives or specific facts - that is to be expected, because I predict that there are millions of Americans who will never admit that Trump has been a terrible President, no matter how badly he fails.
