while the accuracy of its articles would be easily verifiable as source material would be published.
Posting the sources is great and works well when you have peer reviewed reproducible work, however in the news sources are frequently inaccurate to begin with or twisted to fit an agenda. The only way to really create a pure news source is to remove tone and publish just the facts ranked by how many times they have been verified reliably (or by actual evidence, that is deconstructed). The issue with "fake news" is not shitty little low rent websites that are blatantly/obviously biased it is when credible institutions like the BBC or NYT reported "tinged news" or pump out content that is poorly researched just to get site hits and then when confronted with information that is contrary instead of printing retractions or adding notes to the content to reflect accuracy they simply try to either brush it under the rug or defend aspects of content that should simply not defend but instead say "this item is based on something from twitter/facebook/4chan, this information and it's legitimacy is partially or unverified". Ending fake news doesn't start with attacking "alternative" news sites, it ends with making the news as a whole more credible (which is quite tough when you have MSNBC-Fox-CNN doing anything to fill time and websites).
>while the accuracy of its articles would be easily verifiable as source material would be published.
Posting the sources is great and works well when you have peer reviewed reproducible work, however in the news sources are frequently inaccurate to begin with or twisted to fit an agenda. The only way to really create a pure news source is to remove tone and publish just the facts ranked by how many times they have been verified reliably (or by actual evidence, that is deconstructed). The issue with "fake news" is not shitty little low rent websites that are blatantly/obviously biased it is when credible institutions like the BBC or NYT reported "tinged news" or pump out content that is poorly researched just to get site hits and then when confronted with information that is contrary instead of printing retractions or adding notes to the content to reflect accuracy they simply try to either brush it under the rug or defend aspects of content that should simply not defend but instead say "this item is based on something from twitter/facebook/4chan, this information and it's legitimacy is partially or unverified". Ending fake news doesn't start with attacking "alternative" news sites, it ends with making the news as a whole more credible (which is quite tough when you have MSNBC-Fox-CNN doing anything to fill time and websites).
Posting the sources is great and works well when you have peer reviewed reproducible work, however in the news sources are frequently inaccurate to begin with or twisted to fit an agenda. The only way to really create a pure news source is to remove tone and publish just the facts ranked by how many times they have been verified reliably (or by actual evidence, that is deconstructed). The issue with "fake news" is not shitty little low rent websites that are blatantly/obviously biased it is when credible institutions like the BBC or NYT reported "tinged news" or pump out content that is poorly researched just to get site hits and then when confronted with information that is contrary instead of printing retractions or adding notes to the content to reflect accuracy they simply try to either brush it under the rug or defend aspects of content that should simply not defend but instead say "this item is based on something from twitter/facebook/4chan, this information and it's legitimacy is partially or unverified". Ending fake news doesn't start with attacking "alternative" news sites, it ends with making the news as a whole more credible (which is quite tough when you have MSNBC-Fox-CNN doing anything to fill time and websites).