I think that's one of the main changes which would help address the problems in the current media landscape. How many people would continue to treat The Times, for example, as a serious news source if they'd had to retract their "Muslim foster parents converting Christians" story as prominently as they'd splashed it?
The risk I suppose is you need to avoid something like Singapore's Fake News laws where the government decides what is true.
The other change I think would be positive is replacing "unnamed sources" with a disclaimer, for example "people who may or may not exist or be telling the truth". It's important to be able to use anonymous sources but it should be made clearer to readers that anonymity has an associated trustworthiness cost.
The risk I suppose is you need to avoid something like Singapore's Fake News laws where the government decides what is true.
The other change I think would be positive is replacing "unnamed sources" with a disclaimer, for example "people who may or may not exist or be telling the truth". It's important to be able to use anonymous sources but it should be made clearer to readers that anonymity has an associated trustworthiness cost.