When you consider fakes just as the symptom of cognitive deficiencies and all you do is label these stories as why and where they are wrong, your impression of a doomed attempt seems quite understandable to me.

It would be much more helpful to explain and teach by example the underlying cognitive mechanism that tricked you in the first place.

An example. Alot of climate change "sceptics" repeat over and over again, that CO2 is just ~2% of earth atmosphere (doesn't matter if the number is correct or not) and they conclude that therefore CO2's effect on the climate is neglectable. This is wrong reasoning, you got tricked by a small number, but it appears right for a superficial look. (Following this logic, cyanide would be harmless too.)

The over and over (and over and over and over) repetition of that aspect is like a chain reaction you can only effectively stop by halting the underlying process. Otherwise some else fake news get spread next iteration.