TL;DR: I think the uniformly gray area is vastly larger than the "black and white or almost so" area.
Truth in this context is not well defined.
"Dietary cholesterol increase associated with increased mortality" and "Dietary cholesterol increase not associated with increased mortality" are, in fact, both true depending on context. A well written and researched article may elucidate the context in which the headline is true, or (as is more often the case) will just assume that context.
Is it fake news? Depends on the reader's context, but for 99% of the readers at least one of them is fake news, because they are not familiar with the context in which the other is true.
In my experience, the things reported where people -- if they actually looked at the evidence -- would have consensus about "true" or "fake" are actually a small fraction of the things which are - in widely accepted contexts - false.
Let's say I publish an article saying "oxycontin is addictive even if used as prescribed" - today it is considered true, five years ago it was considered fake. The facts did not change, and quite a few people claimed that was the case and had facts to back them up five years ago. This one is easy to talk about because it's essentially been "resolved". There are thousands of examples that have not been resolved, and depend on your context and sources about whether they are "fake" or "not fake".