Reporting information from a credible government source based on facts in evidence, is simply reporting. The facts supplied to the reporter might be wrong, or their conclusion might be faulty, but as long as it's based on evidence and in good faith, it's not 'fake news'.
Infowars passes that test.
It's the job of the press not to take things at face value. That's why the US has laws protecting the press, so it can go up against the government. If they are not doing that then they have stopped being journalists and started being paid propagandists.
Infowars fails that test for me, and as a crosscheck, people who have earned my trust. The New York Times passes that test for me, and people who have earned my trust.
I'd forgotten we're not supposed to do political arguments on HN (which I suppose really everything is), so I concede, you win the argument and the internet points.
Heck there were even intelligence analysts going public saying 'hey guys there's absolutely no evidence of such links' (see Andrew Wilkie).
Its propaganda.
So where the reasonable reporters then, and why should we believe anything has changed.
Reducing news media into 'fake news' and 'always perfectly correct' is a 'false dilemma' fallacy.
What happened with Iraq was a great example of fake news propaganda and the failure of journalism lately, because it was soo wrong not even close to "perfectly correct" or correct anything.
You can't judge decisions in the past based on new evidence unless you can show those original decision makers had the evidence.
I think due to the extreme nature of war, journalists largely failed their responsibilty, and what we know today confirms it.
The large amount of human misery it created was too great a cost, and the refusal to learn lessons from it is a huge tragedy.
Thank you for the fairly civil discussion.