I'm surprised Google messed it up so badly. Was 70news manipulated to the top of the results page, or did their ranking algorithm totally screw up a simple query? Neither makes much sense.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/16/m...
This is not 'fake' news, in a literal sense, because it just says someone is about to release something about Clinton. But for some people, this news could simply be seen as an indictment. Can we claim it is fake in that sense? As I have said above, it is equally controversial to penalize such websites for editorialization, because find story out of non-story is how most news agencies makes money and they have incentive to do this. Blame modern media and journalism for this.
In the end, using one simple algorithm to battle this is kinda of naive, not because it won't work for simple cases, but it fails to cover corner cases. In such scenario, human judgement is still crucial.
I agree that it doesn't cover corner cases, but why should it? If an algorithm knocks out 90% of the crap (like 70news.wordpress.com), there's much less work for the humans.
Also, wow, I didn't know Breitbart was quite that nutty. It reminds me of that LBJ quip along the lines of "it doesn't matter if he porks pigs or not, but now I made him deny it." This seems like a case where a human could do a bit of actual investigation, decide that the article's "Hillary is a lesbian" gist was BS, and permanently penalize Breitbart for publishing it.