It's pretty clear that two things need to be changed about how articles are written and propagated on the internet. First, only primary sources should be cited

It's pretty clear that two things need to be changed about how articles are written and propagated on the internet. First, only primary sources should be cited. If an article is written by a news source, it stands to reason that is is not suitable for citation by another news source. They are both at the same level of empiricism, one cannot be an adequate citation for another. And second, the exchange of data has not changed drastically in the says since the story was first reported, so this isn't an internet speed issue. It's an issue of people being less pliable to the truth once they've hit upon a wonderful fallacy. What that translates to is that news articles need to be less sensationalized, more factual and have a much more rigorous set of criteria for what's true and what's not. I'm not a journalist, but I wouldn't be surprised if journalists deliberately look for what can be sensationalized in a potential story, to the point of unintentionally fabricating material - it is not inconceivable that a reporter simply skimmed some material about the FCC and then this story hit him like a "Eureka!" moment. I doubt it was fully intentional, it was just being caught up in the prospect of a great story.