Do we need digital signing on every image/video in the news?
We will still have un-trusted photos and videos, but they can be recognized as such. Maybe browsers can add a small default 'logo' to an image or video, like the green lock now next to urls.
Th3 partners will be careful to not make waves. This does not mean they'll report the truth.
Only slight snark intended. But let’s say the signing chain involves high profile individuals or corporations
Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.
This kills anonymous sources, maybe literally under hostile regimes.
If it's signed by the equipment that originally recorded it (you're smuggling evidence of crimes out), you may not be able to verify it anyway.
Individual sources can still be anonymous.
But now that's not the case, and in many cases, it's amateurs who more trustworthy than the so called professionals are. That's true in science reporting (where it's often academics writing blogs and stuff outside of their university employment), it's true in technology (where many reliable sources are run by hobbyists) and it's true of the gaming and entertainment media worlds where fan sites, blogs and YouTube channels are often far more reliable than large media organisations are.
A good solution here would basically need to be able to figure out that Science Blogs is more reliable than say the Daily Telegraph when it comes to science reporting, or that Serebii.net is more likely to be right about Pokemon than say the Guardian or BBC is.