>Here's just one example of a fake Breitbart headline But it starts to get a bit confusing when you actually look at the accusations and rebuttals, especially

>Here's just one example of a fake Breitbart headline But it starts to get a bit confusing when you actually look at the accusations and rebuttals, especially when you look at the fleshed out indy article [0] Accusation : "The right-wing American website, which enjoyed a meteoric rise to prominence in 2016, claimed a 1,000-strong mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” set fire to the country’s oldest church in Dortmund." Rebuttal :"Mr Bandermann on the other hand, in a Q&A-style response published the following day, said that from between 6.45pm and 1.30am, groups of young foreign men formed a large group of 1,000 people. He said the fire at the church only set light to netting surrounding the building and lasted just 12 minutes." ... "He said that saying Allahu Akbar is as normal as saying ‘Amen’ in church," So which is fake news? On the facts, the Independent agrees (although through semantics "church netting on fire, not the church" "group" not "mob") with the Breitbart article. If they both agree on the facts, but spin them different ways, how do you determine which is "fake news"? [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/edited-1038-headline-works-well-a7512636.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/edited-1038-... edit: They did actually issue a correction for something they got wrong in the article "Correction: This article states St. Reinold’s Church is the oldest in Germany. We are happy to clarify that accolade belongs to the Trier Cathedral."