Perhaps you might provide some concrete examples regarding Trump so we can see how much the media has promulgated "fake news" rather than telling it like it is and not as Trump would like it to be.
As for the insinuation that the media has a liberal bias in the US, that's just about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. FoxNews is so biased in favour of conservative politics that it isn't funny. It's boast that it's "fair and balanced" must surely be a tongue-in-cheek joke. Then you have Brietbart which is an AltRight mouthpiece. How surprising that Steve Bannon was at Brietbart prior to joining Trump. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and member of Trump's team, owns the New York Observer. Papers, TV stations and online services span the political spectrum.
Trump's complaints about "fake news" aren't made about unsubstantiated reports - they seem to be trotted out when particularly well-researched items hit the papers. No one doubts that the stories about General Flynn's contacts with Russians were absolutely true - Trump complained that the leakers had broken the law rather than made up the story. Nevertheless, he claimed that the reports were "fake news". The reports about TrumpU and Trump's charity were also well researched.
An interesting development is that Trump's White House is refusing to comment when journalists seek comment about reports they're going to file but then immediately the White House claims those stories are false when they are published. Journalists seek comment in part so they can kill a story if there's no substance to it. An example of this was when a journalist discovered a policy paper which suggested that the Home Guard might be enlisted to round up illegal immigrants. Comment was sought and none was given. The story ran. Then the White House thundered about how untrue it was to suggest that this was being considered. The fact that the position paper was true wasn't disputed - the only objection was that it had been dismissed as an option. Hmmm ... you'd think that would have been an easy comment to make before the story was published.
As for the insinuation that the media has a liberal bias in the US, that's just about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. FoxNews is so biased in favour of conservative politics that it isn't funny. It's boast that it's "fair and balanced" must surely be a tongue-in-cheek joke. Then you have Brietbart which is an AltRight mouthpiece. How surprising that Steve Bannon was at Brietbart prior to joining Trump. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and member of Trump's team, owns the New York Observer. Papers, TV stations and online services span the political spectrum.
Trump's complaints about "fake news" aren't made about unsubstantiated reports - they seem to be trotted out when particularly well-researched items hit the papers. No one doubts that the stories about General Flynn's contacts with Russians were absolutely true - Trump complained that the leakers had broken the law rather than made up the story. Nevertheless, he claimed that the reports were "fake news". The reports about TrumpU and Trump's charity were also well researched.
An interesting development is that Trump's White House is refusing to comment when journalists seek comment about reports they're going to file but then immediately the White House claims those stories are false when they are published. Journalists seek comment in part so they can kill a story if there's no substance to it. An example of this was when a journalist discovered a policy paper which suggested that the Home Guard might be enlisted to round up illegal immigrants. Comment was sought and none was given. The story ran. Then the White House thundered about how untrue it was to suggest that this was being considered. The fact that the position paper was true wasn't disputed - the only objection was that it had been dismissed as an option. Hmmm ... you'd think that would have been an easy comment to make before the story was published.