I think they meant it sarcastically. You can't deny it that the majority of mass media has overwhelmingly picked one candidate. Even down to passing her debate questions in advance and so on.
I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that Hillary as far as the media was concerned was supposed to be the winner, not just because they simply wished it to be true, but because they went out of their way to make it so.
In the end they failed. The result of that was a backlash called "Fake News". It is a censorship system designed to bring the influence of media back on-line.
One interesting thing is that traditional media's failure to manufacture consent is perceived to be broken so that left a vacuum for social media to jump in. We saw how quickly Facebook and Google rushed in. I think deep down they want to signal to those in power that "we'll do a better job manufacturing consent for you than those old crusty news channels".
That's where facts are important. Those "fake news" are completely disconnected from reality. I mean North Korean government news agency type of disconnected from reality.
You really think they need to be treated as a better source of information than professional journalists with verifiable sources etc ?
I think biased information, whatever the bias is, as long as it is based on facts is way better than the random bat-shit crazy news we saw popping up all over the place.
