To be fair, this same exact sentiment holds true for every publication in existence, since entering the digital era. No secondary or tertiary sources are deeme

To be fair, this same exact sentiment holds true for every publication in existence, since entering the digital era. No secondary or tertiary sources are deemed acceptable anymore. Everything seems to be entirely based on primary sources now, while simultaneously, trust in primary sources is being eroded by deepfake tech in audio and video. So in the end, we will need to find a way to create consensus of what happened in reality, to a degree that sufficiently satisfies all people that want information on a topic. A blockchain for accountability in journalism should be established, whereby they are paid for their work by providing and verifying accurate information. Said blockchain could also be used to manage the entire lifecycle of what is deemed fact. Over time, a rating system will establish the best in their profession while also working out the bad actors. The tricky thing to me would be figuring out who should manage the rating system, as that would be akin to being a guardian of all historic fact. And as we know, rating systems are a suppression mechanism in the hands of the majority groupthink opinion. I'm not an expert on any of this, and I can already find flaws in this implementation, but I think we should really figure out a way to deal with the situation we have created for ourselves, since, you know, we probably gotta live with this crap for several more years.