"Truth by consensus" will work for a while, until someone - probably the Russians - work out how to game it. Won't take long. Just ask Google, they spend beeellions in keeping just one step ahead of the "optimisers" (read: liars).
I think the only sensible way to try to distinguish fake news is to follow up the references. Because, and it's important to remember this, all news stories take the form "A says X". If your story isn't syntactically equivalent to "Bob says 'It's raining'", then it's Not News.
References support the full story? Then, and only then, is it "real news". Of course the quality of news is only as good as the references, but that's always been the case and always will be. Repeated references acquire Reputation.
Story has references, and they're verifiable, but the references only confirm a small part of it? Flag as "analysis or speculation, not news".
Story has references, and they're verifiable, but they don't say what the story says they do? Flag as "bullshit".
Story has no references? Flag it as "creative fiction". This works for any story whose author doesn't explicitly say how they learned these things they're telling you.
The tricky case is: story has references, but they're unverifiable. Then you would want to cross-reference, and it's hard to do that without introducing guesswork. How plausible is it that these people exist, and would do or say these things? I can't think of any procedural way to make that assessment.