The term "fake news" seems to get bandied around a lot these days; use of the term quintrupled between 1998-2008, according to Ngram: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fake+news&year_start=1998&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfake%20news%3B%2Cc0
Fundamentally, we cannot be 100% confident that anything is true. The closest we can get (arguably) is primary empiricism. Beyond that, it's a matter of scrutinising the source of the information.
Mainstream media clearly cannot be relied upon to be independent or moral - see the phone hacking scandal in the UK as an example. Mainstream media are driven by profit not public interest.
Hence I find it disconcerting that Western governments are considering a ban on "fake news". Clearly it will be their decision as to what is "fake" and amounts to nothing more or less than state censorship. If the stories pushed by small independent news providers are really verifiably "fake", then the government should have nothing to worry about, right? In the same way that the government tells us not to worry about constant surveillance because "if you're not a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about" then I would say to the governmemt, if the news you sponsor isn't BS then you have nothing to worry about either.