If a news organization does it less frequently but has a much larger reach...where does that stand? If a website is 40% questionable with a low readership, but another is 10% questionable but reaches millions a day...who is more fake? Who is more accountable? NY Times and Washington Post run heavy political bias in their reporting with some questionable articles over the past month. Because of their resources and readership, if 10% of their content is intentionally misleading...is that fake news? Would they be considered a fake news site because they mislead a large segment of the population in 10% of their content? Or have they been socially deemed as "real news"? This is all for example sake..
..what is fake news compared to real news?
Are their really any news outlets that are unbiased, bipartisan, in-regurgitated, real news? My answer would be...what ever sells the most papers, that is what is printed. A news paper seing their shares fall because of a million small small sites acting as regurgitation machines is starting to take its toll, and papers are calling foul and continually running with that story. There is no real news anymore.
I think the parents argument is that that harm done by disseminating false information is both a function of the inaccuracy of the information and its reach.
If a major news source intentionally slips subtle inaccuracies into their stories to push some agenda it could reasonably be argued that it causes more harm than a small no-name blog with no readership publishing blatant lies.
..what is fake news compared to real news?
Are their really any news outlets that are unbiased, bipartisan, in-regurgitated, real news? My answer would be...what ever sells the most papers, that is what is printed. A news paper seing their shares fall because of a million small small sites acting as regurgitation machines is starting to take its toll, and papers are calling foul and continually running with that story. There is no real news anymore.