Social media isn't the problem as long as it doesn't get into the business of publishing news articles itself. "Facebook News Network" isn't really a thing yet, for example. When people complain that social media helps promote fake news, that's really just a complaint that people are reading these fake news sites, accepting what they read as truthful, and passing them on as recommended reading for their friends.
As an Independent, politically, I'm getting incredibly tired of seeing everything framed as a 2 dimensional "left vs. right" debate. That's why you see all this division (claims that "The Right" are full of stupid, gullible people believing all the fake news, or claims that the left-wing idiots won't accept the truth when it's held in front of their faces).
Reality is, there's no confidence in the mass media anymore, because it doesn't make the effort to provide well researched, unbiased news. Decades ago, the TV news went from a "loss leader" to a big profit center. The focus became entertaining as many people as possible to boost ratings. So jovial anchor-people with silly banter back and forth, or the "weather bunny" became more important than spending money on deep research of a story. And we all know how the newspapers have been hurting since people don't want to pay for one thrown on their doorstep each morning, and advertising in them has been rendered ineffective vs. online alternatives. Combine all of that with many news outlets getting bought out by the same few moguls, and you have a homogenizing of the news. No matter what you read or watch, it tends to learn towards the agenda of the owner of the networks -- and everything else is based on the same "news wire" stories they all obtain and rehash.
If you're a blogger with really limited resources but a motivation to start your own "alternative news site", chances are, you approach it with a strong bias too. That's what motivates you to keep going with it. You have viewpoints that you feel everyone else is ignoring, so you try to emphasize them. This is how we got to such sites as InfoWars or NaturalNews. Offering a strong bias that appeals to an "under-recognized" minority of readers/listeners is a combination for success -- even if it muddies the waters for people just trying to get the facts.
As for the "fact checking" sites like Snopes? The consensus I've seen is that they USED to be pretty unbiased, but ALSO took on more of the internet "chain letters" and other nonsense that was easy to disprove as fraudulent, without attaching any political slant. (If a supposed letter promising a free can of tuna or soda is proven to be fake, nobody considers it a left-wing or right-wing issue.) Lately, they seem to come up much more often when debating something said by the Democrats or Republicans -- and I think a bias toward the left is starting to show. (I don't have links handy at the moment, but I've noticed a few times where Snopes tried to deny a claim against a liberal politician as false. But upon reading their explanation, it was clear they gave an incomplete answer and ignored some of the reasons people on the Right had concerns it was true.) I think they're still a site worth reading -- but certainly not the "end all, be all" answer. (I don't believe the owners of Snopes had any particular credentials making them better than the rest of us at fact checking either?)