But its not about evidence. Its about shifting public opinion. There is and most probably never will be a law that prevents people from sharing/liking/commenting or otherwise trigger the algorithms to spread something based on the fact that it is fake. Media also fakes stuff by simply not providing context. It need no "active" image manipulation. cutting and embedding it into other content works fine since years and apparently there is very very little that can legally be done against this. The fact that the original is out there is also rather meaningless. take for example the very popular "very fine people on both sides" quote, nothing stops you or me to listen to the full conversation. But even today from random people on the street who recognizes the quote probably 50% do not know the real context. Most probably because they simply dont care enough. They involuntary heard the quote but they will not involuntary hear the context, because one goes viral the other does not.
I was thinking at some tabloids, sure some anonymous can post fake stuff but if a journalists creates the fake image/video or documents then there should be more consequences. Also I am not from US so I am not targeting a specific camp, when I was watching news (I stopped years ago_ a lot of energy was spent on discussing insinuations, fake stuff or trivial things. I realized that politicians know how to throw the media some delicious bones to keep them busy with whatever they want.
Its called "accountability", something mainstream journalism doesn't seem to have in most places. Its just a fact that biased "news" get more clicks and thus more money. Its hard to define when "faking" starts and where its is just non-neutral reporting.
