No media outlet is immune to posting what may be considered factually incorrect information, for example, earlier this year as highlighted in [1].
Deciding what is "true" or not these days is incredibly difficult if not impossible when we have a POTUS who wants to control the narrative and calls what could be considered factually correct as "fake news".
Even reporting the "facts" has become incredibly difficult, especially when digital data is so easily manipulated (for example, how can we verify the integrity of a 'tweet' as it was published at a particular second in history? Is there a hash that should be provided? Screenshots can be easily manipulated, as some articles embed the tweet itself and can be later modified, even Spez on Reddit admitted to editing the database).
Everyone wants to control the narrative; this is simply the first time you've been faced with a right-wing POTUS that is capable to some extent of doing so, and it's helped you forget that all political parties are putting forward a narrative, because partisanship is a hefty drug. This is nothing new, which is both good and bad; it's not a novel crisis, but it's also something we can't get rid of.
Deciding what is "true" or not these days is incredibly difficult if not impossible when we have a POTUS who wants to control the narrative and calls what could be considered factually correct as "fake news".
Even reporting the "facts" has become incredibly difficult, especially when digital data is so easily manipulated (for example, how can we verify the integrity of a 'tweet' as it was published at a particular second in history? Is there a hash that should be provided? Screenshots can be easily manipulated, as some articles embed the tweet itself and can be later modified, even Spez on Reddit admitted to editing the database).
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46935701