i'll take the bait i guess.

your images:

1. side by side your images might convince someone unwilling to give it a moment of deeper thought. in actuality, if you look into the articles, maddow's problem with Pat Smith's statements are that they were explicitly partisan and explicitly against the findings of the congressional committees investigating benghazi, including:

>“She deserves to be in stripes,” [Pat] Smith said of Clinton…. “I personally blame Hillary Clinton for the death of my son,” Smith said while fighting back tears.

It seems her biggest problem was that the GOP continues to bring up Benghazi, despite several congressional committees finding no evidence of wrongdoing.

I didnt pay attention much to benghazi, but your image elicits a much stronger sentiment of partisanship than exists between the two articles.

2. hillary wore white, melanie wore white. Two completely different authors took something different away from this, and wrote articles reflecting their opinions of the outfits. Both articles are from 'Style' or 'Fashion' writers and are in the appropriate category for that topic, neither appear to have been advertised as news of any kind. To claim this as an example of 'fake news' is plainly dishonest.

3. a tweet from AP's FactCheck service they were doing during the debates (no indication of how factual the statement was regarded in the screenshot) investigating Trumps statement that Assad is fighting ISIS. The other image is a tweet from AP quoting Assad a few weeks earlier saying he had taken Palmyra from ISIS. If you look at the AP fact check article, they rate Trumps statement as Partially True, noting:

> His overstretched military is mainly focused on combating Syrian opposition groups, some of which are supported by the United States. Assad does use air power against IS-held areas

4. An image of the wall street journal with two different headlines, claiming that the differing headlines were a result of buying them in 'different markets'

Newspapers often print update versions of their papers as events evolve. in this case, the headline 'Trump Softens His Tone' was an earlier edition of the paper, printed after Trumps visit with the Mexican President, but before Trumps return to the US and reaction to the Mexican President's Tweets that they will not pay for the wall; at which point Trump got tougher as a reaction to the tweets - no longer having a softened tone, the WSJ rightly updated the headline to better reflect the current reality of Trumps position.

5.I dont even know what this one is, its a bunch of pictures of the DailyMail and the NYPost, two notorious conspiracy rags - again completely dishonest to use something like this to paint real news sources as dishonest. The pictures are from Bush/Saddam goings on so they must be at least a decade old. (wouldnt it be trivial to find more modern examples of these two magazines lying?)

6. This is just meaningless screenshots with text that implies that the IC telling us that they have evidence of russia hacking the presidential election is equivalent to congress telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no attempt to provide any evidence for this claim, but there is a quote from a Russian Foreign Affairs representative saying that Russia is sick of these claims that they interfered with the lection - very convincing.

7. This, again, simply makes the assertion that the media has lied without providing evidence of any kind. the text says:

>The Mainstream Media has been caught Lying to protect the government, lying about their sources credentials, lying to start foreign wars, and lying to start domestic wars. But please, tell me more about how bad 'Fake News' on the internet is.

Is this really it? This is the alt-rights argument that AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBc, et al are fake news? because someone wrote it in meme font over an image?