It turns out that the stories about "fake news" are FAKE NEWS

The fake news study is fake.

The presidential election proved to be fertile ground for the growth of fake news stories. As people became annoyed by tall tales such as “Pope Francis Endorses Donald Trump for President” popping up in their Facebook feeds, the mainstream media decided it was time to fight back. As calls for action from Facebook grew louder, Buzzfeed released a bombshell report: Fake news outperformed real news on Facebook in the final months of the election. This was then widely taken as fact, but it turned out to be, well, untrue.

And then there's this: The Post-Election Pauline Kael Award Goes to. . . . The Left in which the NY Slimes believes that calling Trump a Nazi is the work of his supporters.

The Times editorial continued: “Explicit expressions of bigotry and hatred by Trump supporters were common throughout the campaign, and they have become even more intense since his election. On a department-store window in Philadelphia, vandals spray-painted ‘Sieg Heil 2016’ and Mr. Trump’s name written with a swastika.” Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t the “Sieg Heil” have most likely been sprayed by anti-Trump vandals comparing the president-elect to Hitler? Just asking. One usually doesn’t write “Sieg Heil” as a compliment, except in the insular world of New York Times editorial writers, where Trump voters are viewed as capable of anything.

For "real news" we have to go to the NY Slimes who "reported" that Clinton was a sure winner leading up to the election: All the News that’s Fit to Fake

“The surge is real, and it’s big. It could be enough to overcome Mr. Trump’s strength among white working-class voters in the swing states of Florida and Nevada. If it does, it will almost certainly win her the election,” the Times reported.

Hispanics represented 11 percent of the electorate in 2016, the same as its 2012 share of the vote. Trump performed better with those voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012, according to exit polls. The election results were no better for the other groups that Times promised its readers would flock to Hillary and rebuke Trump: he won 8 percent of black voters, not the 4 percent that the Times said he would. Hillary also failed to garner the 20-point edge among women the Times suggested she would win, nabbing only 54 percent of the female vote.

The daunting poll numbers Trump faced led the Times to ask “Is This Election Over” on an Oct. 18 podcast, as Clinton’s chance of victory creeped up to 91 percent. The podcast came the same day the Times reported that the Clinton campaign aimed to turn a sure-fire victory into a blow-out with “its most ambitious push yet into traditionally right-leaning states.”

The GOP was in danger of losing statehouses across the country, while Clinton hoped a mandate and coattails would give Democrats control of the House and Senate. North Carolina was in play. So was Texas. Democrats were instructed “don’t gloat,” while reporters wondered how Republicans would address the “crucial and onerous decisions” to stonewall or negotiate with Clinton because “Mrs. Clinton is also viewed as someone capable of breaking the ice with congressional Republican leaders.”

With the race already decided, the Times turned its focus to the biggest storyline of the last two weeks of the election: Trump supporters rioting in the streets prompted by the billionaire’s insistence that the vote was rigged.

Washington Post Writer: 'The Greatest Thing That Happened to the Republican Party Is Barack Obama'