Given that one of its founding journalists, Glenn Greenwald, is a pulitzer prize winner, and that the site has published many stories on one of the most significant news topics of the decade (the Snowden revelations), I don't think anyone could reasonably place it in the same category as the fake news sites that have been talked about recently.
> You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people classify things as "real" and "fake" for you.
You do this with literally every news source you read or watch. Most people consider CNN, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times etc. to be credible news sources with long-standing reputations. Sure, they are at times biased in their coverage, and selective on what they cover, but unless you're "on the ground" so to speak experiencing current events directly, you have to rely on a degree of trust in journalists and editors. I think the key is looking at the news with a healthy degree of skepticism, and getting your information from a range of different outlets.
