That's pretty much it. They are pretty baldfaced about it. It's a real dilemma for their industry and they don't seem to care. Of course they can continue to spin the lies that are most favorable to them while they do it as well so it has negative cost. It's a win win for them.
I'm not sure what to do about it because they nearly have me convinced to agree that we need to ban fake news, if only because of them. But just like chess, the game revolves around damned if you do, damned if you don't situations, and they have engineered that fact. So then the question is which side of the forced decision do we take?
My solution, though not practical, but I wish we could do it, is that I have a theory that the most appropriate way to judge people is by the standards that they themselves judge. The fairest judgment is not uniform. It would be nice to institute selective state sponsored censorship on only those who have been calling for censorship. Then the rest of us can speak freely, and we can quash the dilemma they have been forcing us into. And it would be just because that's what they called for.
If it were possible it would be the right choice because if we do nothing they will get their censorship of the side they want just by manipulating our understanding until we call for it selectively in the way they want. They will win all else unchanged.