Theres your first problem (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-times-quietly-upd...), there is no authority on what is fake and what is reliable and you'll never get those two groups to agree.
"More than 67 Palestinians, including 16 children, have died since the start of the conflict on Monday, Palestinian health officials said. The rockets fired by Hamas and its Islamist ally, Islamic Jihad, killed at least six Israeli civilians, including a 5-year-old boy and one soldier."
Note the use of died vs killed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/world/middleeast/israeli-...
2. the msn example is about nyt loudly and visibly updating a report. I don't see how that is an example about the claim. other than msn thinks it's a good idea to misrepresent a visible and cleanly tagged article update as "quiet update"
But how do you make that decision? People will choose sources whose news hews to their worldview, no?
which includes my personal thought about this dilemma: education. democratic consensus that our society is built on certain values, one of which is the ability to deliberately ponder and discern "news".
I understand I live in a country privileged with proportional representation, which is much less prone to polarization than a fptp by district congress. good luck to all of us..
Sounds like a pretty small sample size.