[MrZongle2]

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed?

In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass?

That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

[7402]

Well, the NYT actually hires a lot of good journalists. Good journalists actually try hard not to print fake news. It's sad that these are surprising concepts.

On page 2 of every (paper) issue of the Times, right under the table of contents, there's a section titled, "Corrections." That's also part of doing good journalism.

[petre]

It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

[pg314]

> But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

That is an extraordinary claim to make. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

[cgvgffyv]

You must be a blast at parties.

[narrowrail]

This is boiler-plate internet snark that one can find all over the web, but is typically looked at unfavorably on HN because it adds nothing to the discussion.

[mvid]

Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits. It is in their best interest not to publish falsehoods.

[MrZongle2]

"Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits."

How, exactly? (I realize that you are not personally responsible for implementation, but I think this is an important question)

If "filtering" merely means blacklisting/whitelisting domains or organizations, this won't work.

And in regard to organizations not publishing falsehoods because it is in their best interest: let's consider Walter Duranty's reporting for the NYT in the 1930s. He won a Pulitzer for that, and that honor was enjoyed by the publication...it further cemented their reputation as the "newspaper of record".

It took 30 years before reports of his falsifications started getting traction, and almost 70 before serious calls were made to strip Duranty of the prize. It has yet to be revoked.

What lesson did the Times learn from that? Did they suffer any kind of financial penalty? What lesson would they learn from a smack on the hand from Facebook?

Would Facebook really ban news from the NYT if the latter had another Duranty, or even another Jayson Blair? What about the Washington Post? The LA Times?

Filtering out "fake news" will cut a lot of the obvious crap out: pointless lists, clickbait, "breakthrough diets", secrets "they" don't want you to know about, and celebrity gossip nonsense. I am not convinced that it will stop political propaganda, which is supposedly the whole point of this exercise.