Brett cannot come up with a definition of "fake news" because whatever standard he came up with would equally apply to the legacy media organizations which he defends no matter what.  He tries to pretend as if it is just "1 or 2 bad journalists" within these organizations but that is, strictly speaking, a lie.  It's not true.  It's demonstrably false, but he reports it as the truth anyway.  I don't know if he's aware of the fact that it's objectively false, but as a journalist I hold him to a higher standard than some casual Tweeter.  If he doesn't know, he SHOULD know.

He defends the indefensible by saying things like "well that is editorial."  Okay, so if Pizzagate was put into the "editorial" section of a "fake news" website, then it would be totally legit, right?  Alternatively, if the WaPo "reported" on the pedophilia ring in a pizza parlor based upon "anonymous sources," and put pizzagate into the "editorial" section, by his own logic this would be perfectly fine.  Hypocrisy.