actually it falls under
comment and criticism, and depending on the list, education and research are also candidates. I know this because I keep a text document of section 107 on my desktop that I copied from the cornell university law school website.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
I'm very well versed in fair use, thanks. If you follow copyright law, as your post implies, then you'll be familiar with the idea that a "top list" piece of content has never been tested in court under the fair use defense. To claim that a top X list applies under comment and criticism is dubious at best, considering the vast number and majority of egregious examples of copyright infringement on YouTube.
What you gave is bad advice, pure and simple. It could have been good advice if you'd taken it to the logical conclusion and explained the fair use situation properly.
Running a news show may well frequently see fair use application, but only in relation to the copyrighted material and the content direction itself. Fair use operates on the basic tenet of "I have to use this content, because this content is what I'm talking about". So, any top X list kind of content would actually need to be commentary or critique, and the images used would have to actually pertain to the content of the comment or critique. For example, making a top jerks of 2015 list and then using a random picture of a devil instead of the face of an actual person on the list certainly wouldn't pass any fair use testing or debate.
The same logic is applied to the concept of parody. Many people believe that parody simply means funny stuff. What it actually means is very specific. A parody is using content to make fun of the content you're using. This is protected under fair use. Satire on the other hand is simply making fun of something and using unrelated content to do it. To put a specific down in text that I've used before because it does the best job of helping people understand, Weird Al doing the song Smells Like Nirvana is a parody and protected under fair use because he uses Nirvana copyrighted material to make fun of Nirvana. His song Amish Paradise rather, is a Satire and not protected because he uses Coolio copyrighted material to make fun of the Amish.
The OP on the other hand, talked about random images online for a top list, without giving any further detail and people pop up saying that it's totally legal. By and large it is not, and in the cases it is, far too little information was provided to actually make any kind of judgement.
And finally, there is the possibility of the transformative claim. The idea that a bunch of small uses in a greater production amount to a transformative work rather than infringement. Legal experts have weighed in on the "buzzfeed" style top 10 list nonsense and essentially pointed out that simply adding a caption would illicit a very interesting response if it ever passed before a judge. Thus the question of precisely how much content the OP intends to add is rather important.
You have a very simplified understanding of fair use and in my view, should research it further.
