Applying the idea of "fact checking" to politically charged topics inherently raises problems. Snopes was a good site to find out if there were really alligators in the sewers. The Forbes article cited by rokosbasilisk here seems to demand a high standard of quality from fact checkers - but who is to pay for it?
Now, The Guardian chose some headlines to illustrate this story with. Presumably the Guardian considers them good examples of "fake news". One of them is about the Clintons "stealing $200K worth of furniture" etc. Politifact has a surprisingly detailed page on this allegation. The result is, typically, gray. It wasn't $200K (suspiciously round number); closer to $190K. And the Clintons paid for or returned the "stolen" items; which either makes them "not stolen" or "stolen and returned".
But the whole claim of "theft" rests on the items' designation as national property, which may not have been clear at the time.
Given that this headline is an example of what the media (including Facebook) wants to shield the masses from - what then do they want the masses to hear? Is it (a) nothing, (b) inoculation/discrediting by labelling the meme as "fake news"; (c) a less sensationalized headlines?
Now, The Guardian chose some headlines to illustrate this story with. Presumably the Guardian considers them good examples of "fake news". One of them is about the Clintons "stealing $200K worth of furniture" etc. Politifact has a surprisingly detailed page on this allegation. The result is, typically, gray. It wasn't $200K (suspiciously round number); closer to $190K. And the Clintons paid for or returned the "stolen" items; which either makes them "not stolen" or "stolen and returned".
But the whole claim of "theft" rests on the items' designation as national property, which may not have been clear at the time.
Given that this headline is an example of what the media (including Facebook) wants to shield the masses from - what then do they want the masses to hear? Is it (a) nothing, (b) inoculation/discrediting by labelling the meme as "fake news"; (c) a less sensationalized headlines?