If it was random, you'd be right, But that image wasn't arbitrary, it was deliberately misleading and created to generate hype/outrage, and the numbers in it now come up as fact. It would be like taking a particular 5 year snapshot of temperatures that were declining, graphing it and labeling it "Climate Change Debunked."
I'm open to it being in some other category of fake, but then we need a label for it.
> I'm open to it being in some other category of fake, but then we need a label for it.
I agree with you. I think "deliberately misleading", "factually inaccurate", even "complete bullshit" are applicable, I just disagree with the overloading of the term "fake news" to describe all manner of falsehood. The word fake followed by the word news in an english sentence is supposed to mean something very specific and when the term is blithely abused to suit the egos of warring partisans it diminishes society's ability to hold the influential news media organizations responsible for accuracy in reporting. In today's world everything is fake news to somebody and that wasn't true in 2014.
I'm open to it being in some other category of fake, but then we need a label for it.