Using "reputation" alone is a dangerous and naive standard -- the most powerful form of "fake news" is the selection/omission of stories and crafting of narrati

Using "reputation" alone is a dangerous and naive standard -- the most powerful form of "fake news" is the selection/omission of stories and crafting of narratives around those stories, which is just as prevalent on "real news" sources like WaPo/CBS/CNN/NYT as it is on Fox/Breitbart and even 'fringe' sources. With the issue of opinions derived from factual events, which fit the bill of being 'misleading' (to some groups, at least) -- how do you draw the line? The NYT is certainly not exempt from that (see: half of Paul Krugman's articles). The only thing you can possibly check for with any reliability is the validity of the base, source event, if there is one. Any higher derivation in the wrong hands (Facebook, for example) is systemic censorship. How can we safely do that? Recursive link tracking, perhaps, to a "primary source," which relies on the AI matching the factual claim to an appropriate source, either a video, image, or text that can be considered the legitimate source based on context (for example, an article about Apple's earnings could link to a primary source of their press release).