Bias reporting in one form or the other has always existed and only the phrase being used to describe the misinformation has altered. In the last couple of years it has become a fail safe defence or form of attack for people at every point on the political spectrum. Looking through old newspaper reels I found this article from an English newspaper in 1777 which relates to an event alleged to have happened within the ranks of the Continental Army a year after declaring independence from Great Britain .
The following circumstance, which lately happened in the American army is proof with what Spirit and humanity both officers and men conduct themselves...
A Lieutenant Colonel having had it in orders, that none of his men, upon pain of death , should pass through the corn fields, a soldier returning from a neighbouring village was guilty of a breach of orders. His colonel saw him, and ordered him to instant punishment. The fellow remonstrated and pleaded ignorance, but all to no purpose; which just on the instant of their disarming him, he turned about to the Lieutenant Colonel, and in a stern voice, cried out, "I am not guilty because I never heard such orders; but I shall take care to deserve death for something" on which he levelled his piece at the officer and fired; providentially it missed him; when the Colonel immediately suspended his sentence, inquired more minutely into the fact, found he was innocent and not only pardoned him the first and second offence, but directly gave him a halbert.
So instead of carrying out a summery execution, the Colonel pardons the soldier for walking through the corn, secondly pardons him for taking a shot at him with his pistol and then to top it all off he gives him a halbert or rather a promotion. At this point in time a halbert was not simply a useful spear combined with an axe head on the end; it was a symbol of rank for non commissioned officers of the line during the American Revolution.
In many ways this article could be seen as one of the earliest pro-American pieces of what today would be branded 'Fake News', or maybe every word is true and the events it describe really happened. Most probably it should be read with an eye to its intended audience as an analogy for British readers in the 18th Century on how Great Britain should be seeking a more humble and understanding relationship with the 'Colonies'. From working on this publication throughout the late part of the 1700's the sympathies of the editor and staff do appear to lie with those of a revolutionary disposition, as can be seen in the photograph below referring to English unrest in Gloucester in January 1793. Personally I just like finding interesting snippets from the past and leave the interpretation up to others.
reference on halberts significince - https://www.nps.gov/vafo/learn/historyculture/upload/webpolearms.pdf