> You know why this is fake news You have distorted the meaning of this term. It was originally applied to fly-by-night online "publications" who have no back

> You know why this is fake news You have distorted the meaning of this term. It was originally applied to fly-by-night online "publications" who have no background or experience in journalism making spurious claims later shown to have no backing evidence. This is an eyewitness account of an attack (the authr does describe it as terrorism, yes) and later the response to their account and video recording. The video substantiates his account and the response is likely backed with evidence (police report regarding white powder, etc). You dispute the author's claim that it should be called terrorism. That's pretty subtle overall IMO, and does not make the article or the publication worthy of being described as "fake news." Please choose another term, like "hyperbole" or "exaggeration".