I don't think some of these points are necessarily accurate. Speaking generally, "fake news" is a real problem, though a more accurate term would perhaps be "p

I don't think some of these points are necessarily accurate. Speaking generally, "fake news" is a real problem, though a more accurate term would perhaps be "poorly vetted" news. Large media outlets feel the need and pressure to compete with the rapidity of social media for news since prior to doing so, the large media outlets appared to be lagging behind "real news". I think that it's better to say that we're still not sure how to handle and adjust to a new world where data updates are instanateous for the general population. The traditional gatekeepers have lost a lot of power and many new ones have risen up in their place - the new gatekeepers have various degrees of fact checking and integrity, so they can produce more content and faster, meaning that anyone regardless of affiliation can find nearly instant authoritative sources on just about anything they care to in a matter of seconds, with search bubbles catering to their biases. Fake news in the context of it being poorly researches and poorly vetted is a real problem. We don't have the system of checks that journalism used to have for instaneous news pieces, and it's not something you can mine out either - it requires some actual fact checking; did this person really say this? what is the context of the statement? was the piece legitimate or satire? It's not necessarily a disinformation battle, no, but man, it's really hard to sort through a lot of the information out there, especially when the majority of the populous is used to having a few definitive sources they can rely on for good hard hitting journalism.