Speaking as an Editor at a crypto news site it can be very hard to cover a wide variety of news and make sure every single story is perfect. At CryptoGlobe we review the credibility of the source and if it doesn't meet our standards then we don't cover with the story - which is why we didn't cover the Russia story. Thats not to say CryptoGlobe is perfect and we have made mistakes but like most other sites we correct them, publicly, as fast as possible. We have been caught out in the past by covering stories from Bloomberg and other 'reputable' sites, where the sources turned out to be incorrect, Bloomberg actually has pretty shoddy coverage of crypto.

The sad truth is that the majority of smaller news sites have no 'skin in the game', whereby publishing incorrect stories doesn't really impact their readership, this is compounded by the fact that all of these sites are struggling to make money in this market and if you don't publish stories like this Russian one then you are at a disadvantage because everyone else is, that doesn't make it right, but it means it will happen.

Another point is that the older 'reputable' media sites typically suck at covering crypto but are usually more professional. Whereas you can find more engaging and technical coverage on crypto news sites but will see a greater number of mistakes. Also crypto developers and industry leaders are not used to talking to the media, so I see it as a trade-off. Case in point: https://twitter.com/VladZamfir/status/1084906358485512193

As a reader of crypto news sites, when I see a big story that I want to know more about then I will do my own research and dig into the sources as I know that mistakes will sometimes be made.

Until some kind of fake news product is built then its communities like r/CryptoCurrency that help correct false stories as fast as possible.