[makomk]

This is probably already happening with good old fashioned Photoshop (or not even that sometimes). For instance, when a Telegraph journalist mistook a photoshopped photo of Trump with a white supremacist for the real deal and tweeted it with the comment that "this isn't complicated"[1], I doubt many people who saw the original tweet even saw the correction[2]. Over 28,000 retweets for the original claim, under a thousand for the correction. This is about typical.

[1] http://archive.is/paG5C [2] https://twitter.com/rafsanchez/status/896654656348323841

[_red]

As if "Photo OPs" haven't been essentially exploiting this principle for 100+ yrs.

This is nothing more than legacy media bemoaning that media production (and propaganda production) has now moved mainstream and is out of their control.

In the end its a good thing, having a "trusted news sources" is not a normative expectation to any critical thinking based society. Everything should be viewed critically and viewed somewhat suspiciously. The entire concept of "trusted news" only has real appeal to the intellectually lazy. There is no objective truth in matters of politics, economics, society. Having some class of companies designated as "Trusted" has 1000x scarier potential than "view everything as a potential political statement".

[rabidrat]

"A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes."

[gowld]

One feature missing is a way to mark every account that tweeted the original but not the correction as an unreliable possible-troll.