This person thinks that Ukraine invaded Russia, FYI.

If you have evidence of them lying, you're more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don't know which articles you're referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself

Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it's not. There are far fewer gatekeepers now than there were last century, you don't just have to fact check what comes up the traditional media pipe, also social media claims and claims from marginal sources. Both of which look pretty much identical to traditional media in the forms that most people consume them, which is a big part of the issue.

And, of course, anonymous sourcing and source protection still has a place, it's not as trivial as that.

In any case, there are no silver bullets here. This is the world we live in. We're in mitigation mode now.

With respect, this shows an ignorance of the historical role of journalism in democracy.

to cite sources

Sources may have valuable information to get out, but not be willing to go on the record. Professional journalists are like doctors in that they've committed themselves to a code of ethics. As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up.

For publicly available written sources, it's only a bit different. Yes, they could cite every sentence they write, and indeed some do, but it still comes down to institutional trust. If you don't trust where you're getting your news from, this is a problem that's probably not gonna get fixed with citations.

make them liable if it turns out to be false

A terrible no-good idea. Legislating for truth is a slippery slope that ends in authoritarian dystopia. The kind of law you are advocating exists in a ton of countries ("spreading dangerous falsehoods", abuse of defamation laws when the subject involves an individual, etc). You would not want to live in any of these places.

Well, I don't know you personally. I'm saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job.

Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.

....yes...but you do understand a journalist is someone who writes/reads news right? They're not just sat around with sources for no reason, those sources are specifically so they can report news...that's the point. What do you think a source is!?

If an article hasn’t cited any sources, then, imo, it isn’t news

News are those sources for a lot of situations. Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. That's a news article. This can later be cited by somebody else "As reported by Reuters at xyz...". There exist other sources of course, which are, kinda, The News™️ in their respective areas of events. Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. Computer vulnerabilities use CWEs or something equivalent once made public.

What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? Signed, ID-verified, named and double-checked-against-birth-certificate statements from people around him?