I can't understand why you are being downvoted here, except perhaps the political distraction. On this issue, the whole Trump / Obama / US politics angle really

I can't understand why you are being downvoted here, except perhaps the political distraction. On this issue, the whole Trump / Obama / US politics angle really shouldn't be the point. It's pretty easy to find articles I would consider the original definition of "fake news" (conspiracy theory clickbait) that have nothing to do with Obama / Trump or US politics. To put it this way, I find nothing in more sober "mainstream news" that compares to headlines like "CDC works in collusion with vaccine manufacturers... can you really trust their “fake science?”" (http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-26-cdc-history-of-fake-science-shows-the-degree-of-collusion-and-criminality-behind-vaccines.html http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-26-cdc-history-of-fake-sc...). Or, in one of the sites you linked: "ONLY ONE SECRET IN FOODS CAN LITERALLY SAVE YOU FROM EVERYTHING" (http://usainfonews.com/index.php/2017/01/19/one-secret-foods-can-literally-save-everything/ http://usainfonews.com/index.php/2017/01/19/one-secret-foods...). (The secret... antioxidants can "cure" the "malignancy of oxygen" that causes all diseases... ???) It is the conspiracy mindset -- not necessarily the political angle -- that to me distinguished the original definition of fake news. Generally the original "fake news" tends to (as above) take small nuggets from questionable sources and utilize boogeymans based on institutional mistrust to weave their narrative. For instance, the "CDC is fake science" article seems to provide scant evidence for their narrative, other than testimonial from one scientist whose stance is... um... controversial (http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp), a mis-characterization of flu shots as "vaccines", and Evil Shadowy Big Pharma corporations who coerce "fake science" for profit. The antioxidants article uses an extremely clickbait-y headline to peddle a pseudo-scientific promotion of antioxidants. This type of stuff has been around for a while ("conspiracy theories") so really it's nothing new. Still, for this reason, personally, I have issues with people lumping in the New York Times and Wall Street Journals of the world in the same "fake news" boat as these type of sites.