A lot of 'real' news is not quality product. The caliber and bandwidth of professional journalism is under stress, with a primary vector being how it is monetized.

Many advertising supported news organizations are facing a grim reality, the pennies per view or click is declining. Facebook is eroding viewer traffic, attention and revenue from 'real' news organizations. Twitter is bypassing much of the editorial/curation function that injected some sanity into the news streams.

Only a few have managed to create or maintain significant subscriber subscription income and/or paid-for (paywall) content access. It is unclear whether there is a viable future for quality mainstream news organizations, beyond flooding their content with copious ads and posting endless mostly auto-generated 'stories' with little actual value to the reader, beyond click-bait driven attention grabbing.

In a world of unverified postings mostly absent critical review or reflection, the signal to noise ratios are extreme, especially when viewed through a bias-reinforcing smartphone Facebook app.

Regarding that FiB 'fake news checking' app/service, the underlying assumption is that the fake news appears early or first on FB. Twitter seems to be a common first source, and in volume, which 'reputable' news organizations now continuously monitor and quickly repost/rewrite in order to not seem 'late'. Actual checking and vetting takes time and human energy, which they don't have. If the fake FB posting is late compared to other sources, then the fake news can become 'verified'?

The expensive Bloomberg terminal news feed tends to be fast and accurate. Slow and accurate news is difficult to sell these days. So we get fast and inaccurate, in volume