1) NYT on Nov. 10th, two days after the election, page A-1 screamer headline: "Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency."
Is it my own conservative bias that has caused my impression that the NYT did not headline that way after Obama's election?
Here are 16 other NYT headlines of this type, including "Trump's Threat to the Constitution" (find that on Obama) and "Trump's Breezy Calls to World Leaders Leave Diplomats Aghast."
Aghast?! Aghast is what the Times itself is about Trump -- not that I blame them! That's fine, but if you're aghast at Trump, let's not pretend otherwise.
...
2) Rachel Maddow's headline "Unrest in Venezuela over Trump Donations." Over 50% of Venezuelans will take at least one day off work this week to search the city for food, usually out of dumpsters. The Venezuelan tragedy is truly pathetic; to lead the U.S. public to believe they are rioting over a $500K Trump donation speaks for itself as to the Fake News orientation. You can't PROVE she was lying. So that's not Fake News?
...
3) "Pro-Trump Rally Turns Violent," at least 100 examples. Technically true! But if neocons were wearing ninja outfits to pepper-spray innocents in Hillary crowds, would the headline read "Pro-Hillary Rally Turns Violent" or would it read "Trump Supporters Charged with Hate Crimes at Peaceful Hillary Rally"?
...
etc. That's the Fake News that I'm concerned about, the DECEPTION through EMPHASIS. Not whether the factoids, below the fold, are accurate.