Not quite what I meant about identifying content but fair point.
As for fake news, the most reliable way to tell is whether the piece states information as verifiable fact, and if that fact is verified. Basically, there should be at least some sort of verifiable info in the article, or else it’s just narrative. While one side’s take may be “real” to half the world, the other side’s take can be “real” to the other half of the world, but there should be some piece of actual information that both sides look at and agree is real.
That means if you have an investigative reporter with non-public sources, that’s fake news because the other side has no access to his non-public sources?
They certainly do identify content, and indeed alter the way that certain messages are promoted.
Example.
Who decides what is and is not fake news?
Not quite what I meant about identifying content but fair point.
As for fake news, the most reliable way to tell is whether the piece states information as verifiable fact, and if that fact is verified. Basically, there should be at least some sort of verifiable info in the article, or else it’s just narrative. While one side’s take may be “real” to half the world, the other side’s take can be “real” to the other half of the world, but there should be some piece of actual information that both sides look at and agree is real.
Verified by whom? There is a long history of “facts verified by official sources” turning out to be false.
That means if you have an investigative reporter with non-public sources, that’s fake news because the other side has no access to his non-public sources?