It was unprecedented: All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had agreed that Russia was to blame for election hacks.
Except now, as it turns out, the 17 agencies story was a crock. Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, was the first to notice a tiny “correction” in The New York Times. “The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false,” Parry reported on June 29, 2017. 
Then, on June 30th, The Associated Press issued a scanty “clarification”: Oops! The “assessment”, as it turns out, was based on information collected by just three agencies and then “published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.” 
For months there had been parades and brass bands shouting about how “all the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree!” Then, at the end of June, a mute blind man carrying a sign at midnight strolled dark alleys proclaiming in small print the “clarification.” Few noticed.
Earlier, Oliver Stone had been challenged about his interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “But Stone! Don’t you realize that all the 17 agencies agree it was the Russians!?” To this, Stone responded it had only been an assessment, far less than iron-clad. At the time, the mainstream news had not yet issued their “clarification.”
So why do they call them “fake news”? In the above you can find a clue. The “fake news” concept has been in the foreground lately. But the criticism goes back at least to 1988, when Noam Chomsky’s book, Manufacturing Consent, was first published.
——- Sources ——-
 “NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard”, by Robert Parry. Consortium News, June 29, 2017. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/
 “Clarification: Trump-Russia stories”, AP, June 30, 2017.