Here are two interrelated questions for you:
- How do you define fake news?
- Which news sources do you trust?
hah hah that's an easy one. The leftist mass media's unrelenting, abject, monstrously unrepentant mendacity provides the exact opposite of reliable news. I just naturally assume that anything the leftist mass media reports (or advocates through editorials) represents the OPPOSITE of whatever they want people to believe it to be. If they report something as the truth, I naturally assume that it is fallacious. If they represent it as moral, right minded and innocuous, I know for a virtually certainty that it is amoral, craven and pernicious.
It doesn't ALWAYS work but it works so often and so well that I rarely have to do much individual research because eventually just scanning watchdog sites/talk radio (Drudge, Breitbart, WND, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt and their affiliates) provides accurate cross-checking references for authentic topical information sources for any issue which rises to the top of the new cycle ( especially those which "grow legs" or "tank treads").
For matters concerning militant fundie muzz shenanigans there is the ever-ready Jihad Watch and affiliates (Apostate.com) . Also there is Dr. Sebastian Gorka's site/articles. Mark Stein (Limbaugh's sub) is also generally up on the most current muzz horrors as well.
For matters of DC/Beltway stuff there is Hugh Hewitt.
For Constitutional law / history of government there is no better source than the Great One (Mark Levin). He has never been wrong in any historical reference, nor on any prediction of court behavior that I am aware. He will disagree often with the Men in Black but he never misses the mark (heh) in regard to the crux of the legal issues (i.e. he knows the excuses that the activist judges will commonly use to violate the law and legislate from the bench under pretext of "interpretation").
For specific matters of foreign policy, there is always John Bolton's site/articles.