Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with. No, the foodfight started when two things happened. Liberal pundits began blowing fake news' impact out of proportio…
It is, in fact, empirically a conservative problem: fakenews sites are something like 9-1 conservative. If you care to check (you can just take my word for it), I've been pushing back on the idea that Breitbart is fakenews, from the jump. I find Breitbart abhorrent, though. My conservative friends are sheepish about it. Do you get much value out of it? Could you explain it to me? I'm not a conservative, but I respect…
But for coverage of say Gamergate, it was the only news organization I'd seen to actually investigate and show the other side, rather than just utterly misunderstanding it and labeling it as "gamers are misogynistic racist hate-peddling trolls" and "gamers are dead".
I find Bannon repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what their journalists and commentators say, but they have a different perspective that's important to hear.
Edit: In case anyone hasn't actually seen what gamers were actually pissed at, it was the corruption in the gaming journalism industry. The Wikipedia article is horseshit, as was most of the mainstream press coverage. Start at http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster and see for yourself.