[lhnz]

Yes, that is my point. Lies are lies. Facts are facts.

The indiscriminate usage of the term by the mainstream media is a strategic mistake since they are giving ground to the frame of all facts being subjective and equally applicable. Remember that 'fake news' was quickly and effectively used by the alt-right to tarnish mainstream media. I expect 'alternative facts' will eventually be used against them, too.

Also 'alternative facts' might be a position that the mainstream media needs to defend, if the current administration upped their game and began to mislead through selective usage of facts rather than more overt lying.

[BlackFingolfin]

"... of all facts being subjective and equally applicable"

I guess you meant to write "objective" there instead of "subjective", at least otherwise I can't make sense from what you write...

The thing is: Facts are, by definition, obective: "a thing that is known or proved to be true". However, their interpretation is not, and it may well be influenced by additional facts being revealed -- thus, whenver somebody says "given the facts, it is clear that XYZ holds", what they really mean (whether they are aware of it or not is another question) is "given the facts I am aware of, XYZ holds".

But again: these are additional facts, not alternative facts.

So all in all, I don't think your suggestion about an eventual legitimate need for the term "alternative facts" holds gound.

[lhnz]

Well, I think you misunderstand me.

Subjective facts as-in those with different sources or ways of measuring information. For example, people can choose the scientific studies that they draw attention to, and find an expert that agrees with them. (Also, the way in which people use the term 'fact' often relates to empirical observation and this can be miscalibrated: what was considered objective fact sometimes gets disproved or constrained.)

Alternative facts as-in alternative selections of facts. Not merely a case of adding facts, but also in not acknowledging the facts that you don't like.

Aside: @smackay's comment is very close in meaning to what I wrote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480772). You might find it easier to understand.

[delecti]

Reread the sentence:

> The indiscriminate usage of the term by the mainstream media is a strategic mistake since they are giving ground to the frame of all facts being subjective and equally applicable

They're saying that the media using the term "alternative facts" is giving ground to the very people who initially began spreading the lies, and in doing so is giving them an opening to exploit. Those people want to portray facts as subjective and all equally applicable. They aren't, and we should expect the the same people who started spouting "alternative facts" (read: lies) to begin branding actual facts as "alternative facts".