In the correct usage of the term, "fake news" does not refer to partisan opinion. It refers to sites that completely made up stories or conspiracy theory peddli

In the correct usage of the term, "fake news" does not refer to partisan opinion. It refers to sites that completely made up stories or conspiracy theory peddling, often with click-bait friendly headlines. Natural News for instance is a widely cited "fake news" site -- it basically denies the science-based medical community in favor of an "alternative" form of medical quackery, often with a huge dose of "establishment" paranoia and conspiracy theory. (It is not surprise that Natural News is owned by someone who sells supplements and alternative medicine.) So, for instance, a political decision by the India government that affected the Bill and Melinda Gates vaccination program over there, largely to diminish a perception of foreign meddling more than anything else (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN15N13K http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1...) gets turned an implication that Bill and Melinda Gates are killing hundreds of girls in India with an HPV vaccine that contains "extreme side effects" (http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-14-india-tosses-out-gates-foundation-due-to-conflicts-of-interest-with-big-pharma.html http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-14-india-tosses-out-gates...). The only "proof" Natural News offers is provided by links to the front page of several other suspicious conspiracy-theory websites. This is the type of thing easily seen as "fake news". I don't think there's anything even in heavily partisan media (your Fox News and Huffington Posts) that come as close to having as many falsehoods, let alone in more sober media. I really dislike how "fake news" has come to represent "news that has a different opinion than mine", because that was not what the original context was about.